[Great68]

Sports car seizures 'a deep reversal of important rights'

B.C.'s civil liberties watchdog is slamming the possible forfeiture of five high-end sports cars involved in a youth street race last week.

Thirteen young drivers, who are all under the age of 21, were caught racing at speeds of up to 200 kilometres per hour near the Massey Tunnel on Aug. 31.

Mounties aren't recommending any criminal charges, but the Civil Forfeiture Office will pursue the seizure of a handful of the cars.

Micheal Vonn, policy director for the BC Civil Liberties Association, says that response is wildly disproportionate to the offence, especially when none of the young drivers has been charged with a crime.

"This is just an end run around the criminal process," she told ctvbc.ca.

"There's a reason why we don't charge people $1 million for jaywalking. We expect a court to make a fair assessment of what is due in terms of violation or offence."

A baker's dozen of luxury cars -- including Ferraris, Maseratis, Lamborghinis, Mercedes, Aston Martins and Audis -- were seized in Surrey and White Rock in connection to the street race. The vehicles were returned to the young people Thursday after a seven-day impoundment.

Each of the drivers has been issued a $196 ticket for driving without reasonable consideration, but police say there just isn't enough evidence to recommend charges.

"With the criminal avenue closed to us, we decided to see if there was enough evidence to proceed civilly," RCMP Supt. Norm Gaumont said in a release Thursday.

Solicitor General Shirley Bond says that the civil forfeiture office has determined there is enough evidence to file civil claims concerning five of the vehicles.

"We expect people to behave responsibly on the highways," she told reporters.

"I think it's important to send a very strong message that this kind of behaviour is not going to be tolerated."

Bond says the government is trying to protect public safety through the forfeiture action, and promises that the cars' owners will have a fair shake in court.

BCCLA ‘caught off guard' by forfeitures

Vonn says this marks the latest in a series of troubling examples of forfeiture claims made by the B.C. government.

"We've seen a real pile-up here in scenarios in which we've been caught off guard," she said.

Earlier this week, the B.C. Supreme Court ruled that the government can go ahead with its lawsuit seeking to seize a former grow-op home on Vancouver Island, even though the house's owner was acquitted of all drug charges against him.

And in February, a judge approved the seizure of two East Vancouver properties worth almost $1 million, although the homes' owner was never charged and wasn't aware that his tenants were operating sophisticated grow-ops inside.

"Is a $1-million fine appropriate for failing to know what your tenants were doing?" Vonn asked

"This is a deep reversal of some very important rights of all citizens."

Von says the B.C. public was misinformed when the government brought in legislation allowing civil forfeitures. She says the understanding was that the law would allow the government to seize the proceeds of organized crime.

"When this law was brought in we were told ... this would be all about gangs," she said. "[These recent cases are] not what people think about at all when they think about the fruits of crime."

She points out that the criminal justice system does allow for seizures of property connected to crime -- as long as the accused person has been found guilty.

"We're not opposed to the idea of criminal forfeitures," Vonn said. "There's no civil right to maintain the fruits of crime."

But the civil justice system requires a different standard of proof entirely, and the criminal benchmark of "beyond a reasonable doubt" doesn't come into play. And unlike in criminal cases, people involved in civil lawsuits do not have the right to legal aid.

B.C.'s law on civil forfeiture has been tested in the Supreme Court of Canada, Vonn says, but that case only asked whether it's appropriate for the province to make seizures when criminal law is a federal matter.

But she says that if the BCCLA sees a good opportunity to test the law again based on what it sees as misuses of power, it will consider taking the province to court.

The B.C. government says that the profits made from civil forfeitures go towards supporting victims of crime.


CTV British Columbia - Sports car seizures 'a deep reversal of important rights' - CTV News (http://www.ctvbc.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20110908/bc_civil_forfeiture_cars_110908/20110908/?hub=BritishColumbiaHome)

Damn right

[FOREVER]

No charges for young street racers - News1130 (http://www.news1130.com/news/local/article/275152--no-charges-for-young-street-racers)

an additional link :D

[DHP 1]

about time

[ecchiecchi]

Stop being jelly gais.

[civic_rice]

Hmm about time some heat is lifted from us imports and shifted on exotics
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

[Marco911]

I hope they hire good lawyers and reverse these ridiculous "laws" for the rest of us.

[shenmecar]

She feels parents need to talk to their kids about safe driving.

:fuckthatshit:

Those 5 kids probably got new race cars already.

[BaoTurbo]

Stupid kids. End of story.


Amen.

[ecchiecchi]

LOL- Can you guys honestly say you want their cars forfeited for the greater good?

Admit it, it's jealousy talking. You guys hoping for forfeiture couldn't care any less about the greater good.

[bing]

^i think people should be concerned, it may not be them having their shit seized today, but it could be them tomorrow (if they fuck up).

It is up to an informed and alert citizenry in a democratic society to keep vigilance against arbitrary police powers (I think we take this too much for granted, but this protects us from moving towards a police state).

p.s. judging from the replies in this thread, you can really tell who understands how our legal system works (educated) and those with great first-hand experiences that are in line with reality versus those who are simply talking out of their ass.

[bing]

Actually it is how our legal system is implemented. Your right its not supposed to be but it is. From drug busts to road rage and street racing.
So its no surprise thats how it was carried out here but my point was if there is no evidence the charges will be dropped and the cars will be returned.

Traffic offenses (if they are non-criminal) are different than say criminal offenses in that they can be issued immediately regardless of evidence. Criminal charges in B.C. on the other hand (as well as in Quebec and New Brunswick) must be approved by Crown counsel based on certain criteria (ex: admissibility of evidence, lack of evidence, likelihood of conviction, etc).

[observer]

"Gaumont said the vehicles were by definition "street racing" and that the drivers were travelling at more than twice the 90-km/h speed limit.

And he cited the disregard by the drivers for others on the road that day, as well as the potential for catastrophic injury or death, as factors that could be considered in the forfeiture process."

If you ask me, cops are dragging on this stupid story to divert public attention over their failure in handling the hockey riot.

[FerrariEnzo]

i find it funny when they say that there isnt enough evidence of criminal act..

SPEEDING on the hwy which endangers other lives... thats enough in it self..

they should be BANNED from having a drivers license, especially the N drivers... then put them under house arrest... no going out after 8pm or something.. FUCKING kids need to learn the hard way...

[Vale46Rossi]

i find it funny when they say that there isnt enough evidence of criminal act..

SPEEDING on the hwy which endangers other lives... thats enough in it self..

they should be BANNED from having a drivers license, especially the N drivers... then put them under house arrest... no going out after 8pm or something.. FUCKING kids need to learn the hard way...


You are fucking retarded.

You find it funny because you are uneducated about the legal system.

When did it say they have enough evidence? The police only have hearsay evidence, for all we know it could be 1 car full of people that is jealous and called it in.

I don't even want to talk to you about your logic in giving them house arrest and drivers license ban.

If we have retards like you making laws everyone in the world would be arrested.

[EDub_]

^^Agreed, if there was hard evidence, or if they could get these people who called in to testify, perhaps they might have a case. This whole scenario is starting to get on my nerves..

[91civicZC]

"Earlier this week, the B.C. Supreme Court ruled that the government can go ahead with its lawsuit seeking to seize a former grow-op home on Vancouver Island, even though the house's owner was acquitted of all drug charges against him.

And in February, a judge approved the seizure of two East Vancouver properties worth almost $1 million, although the homes' owner was never charged and wasn't aware that his tenants were operating sophisticated grow-ops inside. "

Re Read the above, think about it for a moment, and then realize how fucked up that is.

The civic forfeiture law needs to be removed and heavily amended if it’s going to be put back in place.

Thanks RCMP Supt. Norm Gaumont, The VPD is still working to charge people caught on video tape in a riot, but the RCMP is going to be damn sure they try to take some kids property on the hearsay of other drivers. Good job! I know I feel safer.
:speechless:

[Marco911]

"Earlier this week, the B.C. Supreme Court ruled that the government can go ahead with its lawsuit seeking to seize a former grow-op home on Vancouver Island, even though the house's owner was acquitted of all drug charges against him.

And in February, a judge approved the seizure of two East Vancouver properties worth almost $1 million, although the homes' owner was never charged and wasn't aware that his tenants were operating sophisticated grow-ops inside. "

Re Read the above, think about it for a moment, and then realize how fucked up that is.

The civic forfeiture law needs to be removed and heavily amended if it’s going to be put back in place.

Thanks RCMP Supt. Norm Gaumont, The VPD is still working to charge people caught on video tape in a riot, but the RCMP is going to be damn sure they try to take some kids property on the hearsay of other drivers. Good job! I know I feel safer.
:speechless:
They are pursuing civil forfeiture against the drivers that have bad driving records. That makes it even more fucked up.

[taylor192]

They are pursuing civil forfeiture against the drivers that have bad driving records. That makes it even more fucked up.

How so? if anything it makes it more appropriate to target only the bad drivers. Many of them are 'N' new divers, so if they cannot learn from their past mistakes they should lose their privilege to drive. Since these are kids who can easily afford the fine to just drive with a suspended license, suspending their license alone will not serve the punishment the law intends. Thus setting a standard of forfeiting their vehicles if caught is IMHO "fair" punishment for those who can afford to break the law.

I really wish we had laws in Canada where the fine was linked to your ability to pay. A fine is supposed to be a deterrent, and a $196 fine to a person driving a $200K car isn't much of a deterrent. Remember, I make a good salary, so I am in essence asking for fines to be higher for myself too, cause $196 isn't much of a deterrent for me either.

[Gh0stRider]

There will be no clean getaway for at least five of the drivers involved in a spectacular exotic-car street race last week.

The RCMP and Solicitor General Shirley Bond announced Thursday that the province is going forward with the civil-forfeiture process to permanently seize five of the 13 super cars busted in a Deas Island street race.

Bond said the B.C. Civil Forfeiture Office is compiling its case now and will file a claim in B.C. Supreme Court next week.

“This kind of behaviour is not going to be tolerated,” Bond said. “(Civil forfeiture of exotic cars) isn’t new, but certainly when you look at this case, it’s pretty shocking when you have 13 vehicles involved.”

The cars, driven mostly by new drivers, included a Ferrari 599, three Lamborghinis, and an Aston Martin DB9, among others.

Police say the drivers were racing in excess of 200 kilometres per hour during the wild daytime incident. Mounties said they do not have enough evidence for criminal charges.

Bond would not say which of the 13 cars are up for forfeiture.

If the government’s court claim is successful, the office could then auction off the cars and take part of the proceeds to pay for public-safety initiatives.

Metro - Racers' rides going nowhere fast (http://www.metronews.ca/vancouver/local/article/964512--racers-rides-going-nowhere-fast)

[.Renn.Sport]

So... Since when was the Canadian law turned into Communist law?

This civil forfeiture is bs.... even the Chinese don't forfeit stuff without hard evidence!

[Marco911]

How so? if anything it makes it more appropriate to target only the bad drivers. Many of them are 'N' new divers, so if they cannot learn from their past mistakes they should lose their privilege to drive. Since these are kids who can easily afford the fine to just drive with a suspended license, suspending their license alone will not serve the punishment the law intends. Thus setting a standard of forfeiting their vehicles if caught is IMHO "fair" punishment for those who can afford to break the law.

I really wish we had laws in Canada where the fine was linked to your ability to pay. A fine is supposed to be a deterrent, and a $196 fine to a person driving a $200K car isn't much of a deterrent. Remember, I make a good salary, so I am in essence asking for fines to be higher for myself too, cause $196 isn't much of a deterrent for me either.

Driving is a privilege but ownership of private property is a right. If the govt wants to prevent someone from driving they can suspend their license. While the fine is not a deterrent, the points system is. Too many points and you lose your license. All drivers received 6 points and the right to dispute the violation in traffic court where evidence must be presented before a justice of the peace to sustain the charge. That is a system of checks and balances that we can expect in a democratic society. Forced impounds and property seizures are not.

If you think confiscating their cars will prevent them from driving, think again. The are still licensed and can legally drive. Perhaps you would support chopping off their arms and legs as the "final solution" to the alleged aggressive driving problem?

[xpl0sive]

i though the whole point of the civil forfeture act was to take away property from criminals due to the property being proceeds of crime. drug dealers getting their vehicles taken away, but that can only happen if there is enough evidence against them where the crown can PROVE that they paid for the vehicle with drug money.... in this case, the vehicles are not proceeds of crime. they were allegedly used in a "race". the article itself says that the police do not have enough evidence to proceed with criminal charges... so on what basis can their vehicles be taken away? because of a bunch of witnesses that cannot even confirm exactly how fast these cars were going? give me a break, this is all such bullshit

[Marco911]

I don't get the whole "seizing the vehicles of drivers with bad records" either. It's pretty difficult to have a bad driving record and remain licensed in BC these days, particularly if you're an N driver. It's an outrage that someone merely in the group that might not have been driving aggressively is subject to having their parent's vehicle forfeited.

[Marco911]

i though the whole point of the civil forfeture act was to take away property from criminals due to the property being proceeds of crime. drug dealers getting their vehicles taken away, but that can only happen if there is enough evidence against them where the crown can PROVE that they paid for the vehicle with drug money.... in this case, the vehicles are not proceeds of crime. they were allegedly used in a "race". the article itself says that the police do not have enough evidence to proceed with criminal charges... so on what basis can their vehicles be taken away? because of a bunch of witnesses that cannot even confirm exactly how fast these cars were going? give me a break, this is all such bullshit

The seizure laws are written to such a general extent that they can be used in almost any circumstance where they feel public safety is at risk. Ie driving at 50 km/h in a school zone could theoretically qualify. It's the same with the bullshit charge of careless driving, which has no specific criteria and allows the cops to impound your car if they feel like it. Of course, you can dispute the careless driving charge and it'll be likely dropped but you dont have much legal protection if they go after you civilly.

[originalhypa]

I really wish we had laws in Canada where the fine was linked to your ability to pay.

You should move to Libya.

Oh yeah, they just did away with their dictator too, so maybe that won't fit your view of utopia. Maybe North Korea will fit the bill?

Perhaps you would support chopping off their arms and legs as the "final solution" to the alleged aggressive driving problem?

It makes me wonder if this phenomenon of harsh punishment comes from immigrants bringing their crooked ideologies to our nation, or is it simply just hatred and ignorance.

this is all such bullshit

agreed.

A sad time for BC justice. Or lack thereof.

[Great68]

Watching the news and the stupid smirk that ditch witch Shirly Bond had on her face when she made her statements made me fucking want to kick my TV.

Someone needs to throw a pile of shit on her front door with a note that reads "This is representative of your civil forfeiture law"

[taylor192]

Driving is a privilege but ownership of private property is a right.
Ownership of private property is not a right, you watch too much TV. The law governs what we can and cannot own. We wouldn't be discussing this if private property was a right cause criminal and civil forfeiture wouldn't exist.

If the govt wants to prevent someone from driving they can suspend their license. While the fine is not a deterrent, the points system is.
The points system is not a deterrent. Atlantic provinces had to enact roadside checks for insurance and suspended licenses the problem got so bad there, people would just drive anyways - yet you'd jump all over this too cause these roadside checks would somehow infringe on your "rights".

If you think confiscating their cars will prevent them from driving, think again. The are still licensed and can legally drive. Perhaps you would support chopping off their arms and legs as the "final solution" to the alleged aggressive driving problem?
Chopping their arms and legs off is not a legal solution. Since you're adamant about "rights" how about we stick to legal solutions instead of you ranting and raving idiotically. Civil forfeiture is perfectly legal, and has stood the test of the Supreme court.

If everytime they drove they risked losing a $200K asset, it would change their mind pretty quickly (unless they have that much money to burn).

[taylor192]

You should move to Libya.

Oh yeah, they just did away with their dictator too, so maybe that won't fit your view of utopia. Maybe North Korea will fit the bill?

If only you didn't hide behind having the fail button disabled.

You should read the laws of the country you live in before telling others to move elsewhere.

[dachinesedude]

holy i thought they would only get their license suspended at most, but taking away their cars? thats a bit too much

i hope some of them sues

[taylor192]

i though the whole point of the civil forfeture act was to take away property from criminals due to the property being proceeds of crime. drug dealers getting their vehicles taken away, but that can only happen if there is enough evidence against them where the crown can PROVE that they paid for the vehicle with drug money.... in this case, the vehicles are not proceeds of crime. they were allegedly used in a "race". the article itself says that the police do not have enough evidence to proceed with criminal charges... so on what basis can their vehicles be taken away? because of a bunch of witnesses that cannot even confirm exactly how fast these cars were going? give me a break, this is all such bullshit

Lookup the difference between criminal and civil forfeiture. Lots of cases go to civil court that cannot be tried in criminal court.

[Drow]

i find it funny when they say that there isnt enough evidence of criminal act..

SPEEDING on the hwy which endangers other lives... thats enough in it self..

they should be BANNED from having a drivers license, especially the N drivers... then put them under house arrest... no going out after 8pm or something.. FUCKING kids need to learn the hard way...

i know a nice country that might suit your needs...

CHINER

but then again i dont think even china is that radical in terms of communism.

[1990TSI]

I wander if mattzhang is hoping to get his R8 seized so his parents buy him a real car.

[nack]

^shame he's not going to buy his own car anytime soon eh? :troll:

[Ferra]

this is making our media and legal system looks like a witch hunt gong show

I wish they too can be this tough against known criminals whom they have no hard evidence against :failed:

[dangonay]

I'm hoping this will go to court (not like those pussies with the M6 and F430 who got forfeited last year and didn't even bother fighting).

Not because I want to see them lose their cars, but because I want to see the outcome and what evidence and arguments were made to come to that conclusion (I think they'll keep their cars, but I don't know what evidence they have against these 5 specific individuals).

Then we can debate the evidence given and the final result instead of arguing about things nobody really knows or haven't happened yet. Pretty stupid to say they should lose their cars without any evidence. Likewise it's stupid to say our legal system is becoming more like a police state when this case hasn't even been tried in court yet nor have they lost their cars.

[Great68]

I don't care what the evidence is, to me the civil forfeiture law they're using is just plain wrong. I don't think it's right that they should loose their cars unless those cars were bought with drug money.

[wasabisashimi]

This is so dumb, forfeit car due to suspected speeding and endangering the public safety on no evidence..

Why didnt they hang the guy that T-boned my friend's mom last year. It was way worse than this and with evidence of running a yellow light. He got off with a ticket for running yellow light and ICBC will settle for him.

He gets a new car to drive away.

BC justice system sucks, Stop picking on the rich kids and harrassing them for money, they don't owe you shit.:devil:

[donjalapeno]

I wander if mattzhang is hoping to get his R8 seized so his parents buy him a real car.

you wander too much :troll:

[sebTeggy]

......in this case, the vehicles are not proceeds of crime. they were allegedly used in a "race". the article itself says that the police do not have enough evidence to proceed with criminal charges... so on what basis can their vehicles be taken away? because of a bunch of witnesses that cannot even confirm exactly how fast these cars were going? give me a break, this is all such bullshit

Umm, not to be prejudice, but I'm sure all those kids' knees shook like crazy when they got pulled over and admitted to either street racing OR excessive speeding.

A witness does no good on the street and only has use in a court room. I really doubt police would say 'OK someone said you were speeding so we are taking your car away!'

And for the 5/13 kids getting their property seized, that is a tall order. I'm sure they have very good reasoning for this based on their previous driving history. I think it all works out.

The most frustrating part is that Lamborghini and Ferrari are cars for successful, hard-working and motivated entrepreneurs and individuals. I feel almost a faint hit of serenity knowing these spoiled kids with bad manners are finally running into justice. Just look at one of them for example (MB Audi R8) from the summer meet. My mom would beat me to death if I did that. They have no respect for their cars since they didn't work for them, and they have a low level of acceptance when it comes to responsibility.


EDIT: To some degree, it can be said that these vehicles are almost weapons when the drivers are oblivious to their surroundings. Thus, I have no opposition to the provinces decision. Note, that this is coming from someone who got their car seized at the impound lot for a week and learned a lesson.

[Marco911]

Ownership of private property is not a right, you watch too much TV. The law governs what we can and cannot own. We wouldn't be discussing this if private property was a right cause criminal and civil forfeiture wouldn't exist.

Perhaps in the fascist world you think we're living in. Private property is indeed a right. Private property - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_property)



The points system is not a deterrent. Atlantic provinces had to enact roadside checks for insurance and suspended licenses the problem got so bad there, people would just drive anyways - yet you'd jump all over this too cause these roadside checks would somehow infringe on your "rights".


How does your example prove that the points system is not a deterrent? Everyone knows that there are potentially large consequences to driving with a suspended license, not limited to having no insurance and the chance of large penalties if caught.


Chopping their arms and legs off is not a legal solution. Since you're adamant about "rights" how about we stick to legal solutions instead of you ranting and raving idiotically.

Chopping off limbs is a legal solution in some societies. Funny enough, those societies, like you, don't believe in private property rights either.


Civil forfeiture is perfectly legal, and has stood the test of the Supreme court.


Wrong. Civil forfeiture is only valid under 2 circumstances according to legal thought:
1) Proceeds of crime
2) Compensation for victims

I submit that this case does not meet either of these standards.


If everytime they drove they risked losing a $200K asset, it would change their mind pretty quickly (unless they have that much money to burn).
Citizens should not live in fear that a law is applied unjustly depending on whether you drive a high performance, expensive vehicle, or happen to be part of a group that has some members who drive aggressively.

[Marco911]

Umm, not to be prejudice, but I'm sure all those kids' knees shook like crazy when they got pulled over and admitted to either street racing OR excessive speeding.

A witness does no good on the street and only has use in a court room. I really doubt police would say 'OK someone said you were speeding so we are taking your car away!'

And for the 5/13 kids getting their property seized, that is a tall order. I'm sure they have very good reasoning for this based on their previous driving history. I think it all works out.

The most frustrating part is that Lamborghini and Ferrari are cars for successful, hard-working and motivated entrepreneurs and individuals. I feel almost a faint hit of serenity knowing these spoiled kids with bad manners are finally running into justice. Just look at one of them for example (MB Audi R8) from the summer meet. My mom would beat me to death if I did that. They have no respect for their cars since they didn't work for them, and they have a low level of acceptance when it comes to responsibility.


EDIT: To some degree, it can be said that these vehicles are almost weapons when the drivers are oblivious to their surroundings. Thus, I have no opposition to the provinces decision. Note, that this is coming from someone who got their car seized at the impound lot for a week and learned a lesson.

People like you are part of the problem because you have a complete lack of understanding of how justice is supposed to work. As Winston Churchill famously said, "The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter."

[Marco911]

I'm hoping this will go to court (not like those pussies with the M6 and F430 who got forfeited last year and didn't even bother fighting).

Not because I want to see them lose their cars, but because I want to see the outcome and what evidence and arguments were made to come to that conclusion (I think they'll keep their cars, but I don't know what evidence they have against these 5 specific individuals).


If the only evidence they have against the 5 specific individuals is a prior bad driving record would you still support the fact that the Govt is pursuing forfeiture? Watch the video, time stamp 2:15. They are focussing on the cars where the drivers had bad driving records.

This goes back to our previous discussion about the potential for abuse of these laws when they don't have to meet the basic standard of:
1) Proceeds of crime
2) Compensation for victims

And by victims, I mean actual victims that suffer damages, not potential victims.

[wasabisashimi]

The most frustrating part is that Lamborghini and Ferrari are cars for successful, hard-working and motivated entrepreneurs and individuals. I feel almost a faint hit of serenity knowing these spoiled kids with bad manners are finally running into justice.

Who says Ferrari's are for successful, hard working, motivated entrepreneurs?

You sounded bitter because you thought they dont deserve such nice car. Think a little more, what if you inherited such car, would you then not drive it cuz you are not a successful hard working entrepreneur?
Do you know how many Ferraris or Aston Martins are owned and driven by criminals who makes their money on drugs? Would you call that successful entrepreneur?

Quit being bitter, furthermore, we dont know these people, how do we know that they have bad manners?

Are you saying everyone who speeds have bad manner, or rich people have bad manner?....

Really?

[bing]

The most frustrating part is that Lamborghini and Ferrari are cars for successful, hard-working and motivated entrepreneurs and individuals. I feel almost a faint hit of serenity knowing these spoiled kids with bad manners are finally running into justice. Just look at one of them for example (MB Audi R8) from the summer meet. My mom would beat me to death if I did that. They have no respect for their cars since they didn't work for them, and they have a low level of acceptance when it comes to responsibility.

EDIT: To some degree, it can be said that these vehicles are almost weapons when the drivers are oblivious to their surroundings. Thus, I have no opposition to the provinces decision. Note, that this is coming from someone who got their car seized at the impound lot for a week and learned a lesson.

:seriously:

The most frustrating part is that tank tops are for beautiful, thin girls.... (ok I think you get my drift here)

Just because you got impounded does not mean your reply carries extra weight. Any car, driven in that fashion could be considered a weapon yet you seem to point that out only because it is an exotic. You make an opinion without even a basic grasp of criminal justice, the underlying theoretical principles, and or the role of the constitution. With your kind of reasoning, if you ever get caught excessively speeding or get in an accident (charged with driving without undue care) I hope they seize your car and sell it for victim services.

[Senna4ever]

you wander too much :troll:
You're not getting the inside joke....but you're a n00b, so you're excused for now.

[donjalapeno]

:okay:

[Senna4ever]

lol..

Search for the "Wonder/wander" thread from about 3 or 4 years ago. :)

[Soundy]

If the only evidence they have against the 5 specific individuals is a prior bad driving record would you still support the fact that the Govt is pursuing forfeiture? Watch the video, time stamp 2:15. They are focussing on the cars where the drivers had bad driving records.

This goes back to our previous discussion about the potential for abuse of these laws when they don't have to meet the basic standard of:
1) Proceeds of crime
2) Compensation for victims

And by victims, I mean actual victims that suffer damages, not potential victims.

This has been addressed numerous times now on various radio shows, by several people including the Solicitor General: civil forfeiture law (at least in BC) can also be applied to property used in the commission of a crime.

[taylor192]

Perhaps in the fascist world you think we're living in. Private property is indeed a right. Private property - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_property)

Try linking a Canadian law, not some vague Wikipedia article. FFS.

How does your example prove that the points system is not a deterrent? Everyone knows that there are potentially large consequences to driving with a suspended license, not limited to having no insurance and the chance of large penalties if caught.
If you have half a brain you would have understood, yet since you don't I'll give you a hint: Despite the high penalties, people were still driving. Do you need another hint?

Chopping off limbs is a legal solution in some societies. Funny enough, those societies, like you, don't believe in private property rights either.
You're a fucking idiot. I don't know why I waste my time. Welcome to CANADA, chopping off limbs is NOT legal here, and private property is NOT a right. Feel free to look up Canadian, more specially BC law on this and you'll find its NOT as black and white as you idiotically pretend it is. Fuck you're a dumbass.

Wrong. Civil forfeiture is only valid under 2 circumstances according to legal thought:
1) Proceeds of crime
2) Compensation for victims

I submit that this case does not meet either of these standards.
Thankfully you're not a judge. Cause this is civil there's another you have not considered:
3) To remedy the situation

The proceeds of civil forfeiture can be applied not only to the victim, yet also to the prevention of unlawful activities. Since these kids demonstrated that they can block traffic and street race during the day, obviously we need more patrols, so these cars can be seized and sold to pay for more officers to patrol - which remedies the situation.

Welcome to civil law in Canada/BC, go research it before linking another stupid wikipedia article.

Citizens should not live in fear that a law is applied unjustly depending on whether you drive a high performance, expensive vehicle, or happen to be part of a group that has some members who drive aggressively.
My mother once told me: you chose your friends.

If my friends want to go rob a store, or beat a homeless person to death, or any other illegal activity I have the choice of going with them, or letting them go on their own. So lets not pretend the others were just tagging along, I'm not stupid enough to believe that, you might be though.

[LP700-4]

Thankfully you're not a judge. Cause this is civil there's another you have not considered:
3) To remedy the situation

The proceeds of civil forfeiture can be applied not only to the victim, yet also to the prevention of unlawful activities. Since these kids demonstrated that they can block traffic and street race during the day, obviously we need more patrols, so these cars can be seized and sold to pay for more officers to patrol - which remedies the situation.

Okay sure, what you said.

But how do you know they were actually blocking traffic and street racing? Theres no proof of anything.

Unless theres hard evidence of all that happened, there is no situation to remedy.

IF these guys get their cars taken away, whats the rest of the world going to think? In BC you can get your stuff taken away without any proof, just some stories that some other asshole citizens made up.

[originalhypa]

Taylor's been drinking again. Maybe its time for some therapy bud. You seem to have misplaced your sanity.
Posted via RS My balls on your chin (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

[.Renn.Sport]

The proceeds of civil forfeiture can be applied not only to the victim, yet also to the prevention of unlawful activities. Since these kids demonstrated that they can block traffic and street race during the day, obviously we need more patrols, so these cars can be seized and sold to pay for more officers to patrol - which remedies the situation.
.

how the fuck is blocking traffic an unlawful activity? all they could be doing is driving side by side at the speed limit.

according to your retarded brain. they might as confiscate every fucking car that gets a speeding ticket in the future!

[parm104]

I can't believe this is STILL being discussed!

It's not really a gray-area type of a case here...It's pretty black and white...The RCMP Media Relations has already announced a handful of times that there is NOT enough evidence to proceed with Criminal Charges yet people on here continue to think that the RCMP have yet to discover the evidence that the RS Detectives have...

As I have stated in this thread before, there is way too much speculation going on here. Honestly, this thread can be an efficient conversation but for the love of god, STOP giving your own interpretation of the law! It doesn't matter what YOU think the law is or what YOU think the law ought to be...It is what it is! If the RCMP proceed based upon statues and laws we have in place, I have no objection to any outcome here...But if they're not doing that, then that is where we can argue over whether it is right or wrong.

Taylor, no offense man but your understanding of the law is so far off. You keep talking about Civil Forfeiture and how it used against people who commit crimes...You're contradicting yourself when you use the phrase "proceeds of crime" and then fail to read that NO CRIME has been committed and NO PERSON has been charged with a crime! That's a FACT, don't argue it, it's not up for discussion.

And I hope you understand the difference between a TRAFFIC VIOLATION VS A CRIMINAL ACT.

[Marco911]

This has been addressed numerous times now on various radio shows, by several people including the Solicitor General: civil forfeiture law (at least in BC) can also be applied to property used in the commission of a crime.

1) Property used in the commission of a "crime" is a slippery slope. A landlord that has his property confiscated because his tenants used it for a grow-op is a perfect example.

2) What crime was committed here? There isn't even enough evidence to charge them criminally and I conjecture barely enough for a traffic violation to stick.

[Marco911]

Try linking a Canadian law, not some vague Wikipedia article. FFS.

Idiot. Laws in Commonwealth countries are all based on the same principles following English Common law.


If you have half a brain you would have understood, yet since you don't I'll give you a hint: Despite the high penalties, people were still driving. Do you need another hint?

I'm not sure how this supports your argument that confiscating a vehicle, while allowing the driver to keep their driver's license keeps these drivers off the road.



You're a fucking idiot. I don't know why I waste my time. Welcome to CANADA, chopping off limbs is NOT legal here, and private property is NOT a right. Feel free to look up Canadian, more specially BC law on this and you'll find its NOT as black and white as you idiotically pretend it is. Fuck you're a dumbass.

You don't even have a fucking clue what a right is and you have the audacity to call me a dumbass? Let's dissect the logic of your previous statement: "We wouldn't be discussing this if private property was a right cause criminal and civil forfeiture wouldn't exist."

That's like saying individuals have no liberty rights either because then we couldn't put people in jail.

Hint: I am much smarter than you.



Thankfully you're not a judge. Cause this is civil there's another you have not considered:
3) To remedy the situation


Idiot. That fits with my previous point about "COMPENSATION FOR VICTIMS." THERE ARE NO VICTIMS, so there is no situation to remedy. If any of those vehicles struck a pedestrian while being driven in a dangerous manner, by all means confiscate the car to compensate the victim.


The proceeds of civil forfeiture can be applied not only to the victim, yet also to the prevention of unlawful activities. Since these kids demonstrated that they can block traffic and street race during the day, obviously we need more patrols, so these cars can be seized and sold to pay for more officers to patrol - which remedies the situation.


That breathless leap of logic would be immune to any counter-argument I could make so I'm going to leave it as it stands.


Welcome to civil law in Canada/BC, go research it before linking another stupid wikipedia article.

Bad laws are written all the time that get repealed. This is one of them. BC is leading all provinces in the abuse of civil rights.


My mother once told me: you chose your friends.

If my friends want to go rob a store, or beat a homeless person to death, or any other illegal activity I have the choice of going with them, or letting them go on their own. So lets not pretend the others were just tagging along, I'm not stupid enough to believe that, you might be though.

Idiot. If you're driving in a convoy and one of the drivers in the convoy happens to be drinking and has an accident, do you really think that all the drivers in the convoy should be charged for drunk driving? That's what happened here. All 13 drivers charged with the same offence based on conflicting eye witness testimony on SOME of the drivers.

[!SG]

did they bring out the glasses and ultraviolet light yet? QUICK, look for semen stains! [/sarcasm][/CSI]

[Death2Theft]

You should be used to it. Isn't that how China works?
how the fuck is blocking traffic an unlawful activity? all they could be doing is driving side by side at the speed limit.

according to your retarded brain. they might as confiscate every fucking car that gets a speeding ticket in the future!

[Death2Theft]

Matt Zhang star witness at your service!:okay:
I'm hoping this will go to court (not like those pussies with the M6 and F430 who got forfeited last year and didn't even bother fighting).

Not because I want to see them lose their cars, but because I want to see the outcome and what evidence and arguments were made to come to that conclusion (I think they'll keep their cars, but I don't know what evidence they have against these 5 specific individuals).

Then we can debate the evidence given and the final result instead of arguing about things nobody really knows or haven't happened yet. Pretty stupid to say they should lose their cars without any evidence. Likewise it's stupid to say our legal system is becoming more like a police state when this case hasn't even been tried in court yet nor have they lost their cars.

[97ITR]

You should be used to it. Isn't that how China works?

No he wouldn't... You can't confiscate imaginary cars...

[bing]

If you have half a brain you would have understood, yet since you don't I'll give you a hint: Despite the high penalties, people were still driving. Do you need another hint?

The penalties for murder are high, with even the death penalty in some U.S. states applying yet people still commit them. Furthermore, many people who do commit crimes, also do not believe they would get caught or at least the thought does not cross their mind at the time. Regardless, this just proves that there is never going to be a sanction tough enough to prevent any crime 100% of the time.

[Geoc]

how the fuck is blocking traffic an unlawful activity? all they could be doing is driving side by side at the speed limit.

according to your retarded brain. they might as confiscate every fucking car that gets a speeding ticket in the future!


This is completely irrelevant to the civil forfeiture, but I just like to point out:

Driver on right MVA 150

150 (1) The driver of a vehicle must confine the course of the vehicle to the right hand half of the roadway if the roadway is of sufficient width and it is practicable to do so, except

(a) when overtaking and passing a vehicle proceeding in the same direction,

(b) when the right hand half of the roadway is closed to traffic while under construction or repair,

(c) on a highway designated and marked by signs for one way traffic,


(2) The driver of a vehicle proceeding at less than normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing must drive the vehicle in the right hand lane then available for traffic, or as closely as practicable to the right hand curb or edge of the roadway, except when overtaking and passing a vehicle proceeding in the same direction, or when preparing for a left hand turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.


Sorry, but anyone who feels like they have the right to block the flow of traffic by going below traffic speed on left lanes just gets on my nerves.

[dangonay]

If the only evidence they have against the 5 specific individuals is a prior bad driving record would you still support the fact that the Govt is pursuing forfeiture? Watch the video, time stamp 2:15. They are focussing on the cars where the drivers had bad driving records.

This goes back to our previous discussion about the potential for abuse of these laws when they don't have to meet the basic standard of:
1) Proceeds of crime
2) Compensation for victims

And by victims, I mean actual victims that suffer damages, not potential victims.
Should we stop charging people with speeding, drunk driving, running stop signs and any other traffic related activity, since they all relate to potential harm to someone? A drunk driver who gets pulled over hasn't caused any harm to anyone. Likewise with a speeder. The only time we should charge somene with an offence is after they've caused harm? When that drunk driver actually kills or injures someone or the speeder has an actual accident? Because up until that point, there are no victims of speeders or drunk drivers.

The Civil Forfeiture act as its written has more than your two examples of Proceeds of Crime or Compensation for Victims. There are also clauses that say "likely to cause harm to an individual" or "likely to be used in the commission of a crime". These clauses are the same as how we treat drunks or speeders - we fine/charge them (depending on offence severity) before they cause harm since their activities are likely to cause harm.


If someone gets stopped for a severe traffic offence (whatever your definition of severe is), and their previous traffic violations were your typical things people get stopped for (for example, speeding by 20-30 km/h), then I do not think they should lose their cars. If a person commits a "severe" offence and gets warned that the next time they could be subject to forfeiture, and they still go and do it again, then I think they should lose their cars since they were well aware of the consequences.

I don't know the records of the 5 individuals nor do I know what evidence they have on them in this latest case. But if they have a history of dangerous driving or other severe offences plus concrete evidence this time around, then I won't be upset if they lose their cars one bit. If their "history" is your usual stuff and there is nothing "severe", then I don't think they'll lose their cars.

Past behavior is a good predictor of future behavior. This is how insurance companies are able to increase premiums for people with multiple accidents or multiple speeding tickets. If you've been cuaght several times for the same thing, you're not going to be able to convince someone you won't do it again. This is probably the aspect they'll argue in court that these drivers have continually driven in this manner, and are likely to do it again.


Now we have to wait and see what happens and if this actually goes anywhere (my opinion is it won't even make it to a full court hearing and will be quietly dropped before then).

[Rich Sandor]

I think a lot of the media circus is the police trying to scare people into the 'potential' consequences of this type of behavior. Regardless of the eventual outcome, hopefully the next gathering of spoiled rich kids think twice before doing something so blatantly stupid.

[Soundy]

Okay sure, what you said.

But how do you know they were actually blocking traffic and street racing? Theres no proof of anything.

NUMEROUS calls from different drivers, all with the same report, is how.

If you shoot someone in the middle of a downtown street, and two dozen different, unrelated people take the stand in court to say they witnessed you shooting someone, you WILL be convicted - it doesn't require the smoking gun, or for a cop to have witnessed the shooting, or for someone to have video of it.

[taylor192]

Taylor's been drinking again. Maybe its time for some therapy bud. You seem to have misplaced your sanity.
Posted via RS My balls on your chin (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

Great response! Looks like you hit the limit of your intelligence.

[taylor192]

NUMEROUS calls from different drivers, all with the same report, is how.

If you shoot someone in the middle of a downtown street, and two dozen different, unrelated people take the stand in court to say they witnessed you shooting someone, you WILL be convicted - it doesn't require the smoking gun, or for a cop to have witnessed the shooting, or for someone to have video of it.
Shhhhhhhh don't feed the idiots good informatiion, they want to live in a fantasy land of TV laws.

[parm104]

NUMEROUS calls from different drivers, all with the same report, is how.

If you shoot someone in the middle of a downtown street, and two dozen different, unrelated people take the stand in court to say they witnessed you shooting someone, you WILL be convicted - it doesn't require the smoking gun, or for a cop to have witnessed the shooting, or for someone to have video of it.

Soundy, you're absolutely right, witness testimony from even 2 sources can be enough to put charges against these guys...But before that is done, investigators need to corroborate their stories. No two accounts are ever the same. NEVER....There is always SOMETHING different in witness testimony and investigators take into account whether those differences in testimony are relevant or irrelevant in getting a reasonable and reliable witness testimony. You of course, are no stranger to this information. Whenever several witnesses are involved, investigators have a better chance of corroborating different testimony to make a case. However, in this case, it simply did not happen.

I don't know this because of any other source than the same source we all have access to...Media releases. The Media Relations Officer has mentioned several times that they simply weren't able to get reliable witness testimony. If they had it, they would've pressed for charges...

Edit: Taylor, you're calling other people idiots but you're not educating yourself on FACTS. Soundy seemed to have been talking in general terms which makes his posts reasonable but irrelevant. But your posts are pertaining to this particular case and you are simply wrong!

"“After speaking to witnesses and gathering information, police determined there was not enough evidence to proceed with criminal charges,” says Supt. Norm Gaumont, head of Traffic Services for the RCMP in the Lower Mainland. “With the criminal avenue closed to us, we decided to see if there was enough evidence to proceed civilly.” - Supt. Norm Gaumont, head of Traffic Services for the RCMP in the Lower Mainland.

Do you understand what that means?? Yes, it is entirely possible for these witnesses to have collectively put together testimony that could be used as evidence against these guys, but that simply didn't happen! What more is there to discuss and argue! "THERE WAS NOT ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO PROCEED...." So once again, yes there may have been some evidence that inferred that these guys were criminally negligent...Was it ENOUGH EVIDENCE? I'm not going to answer that one and let's see if you can answer it instead...Or will you continue to be narrow-minded and blind to the facts that have been provided to us "public citizens."

[taylor192]

Idiot. Laws in Commonwealth countries are all based on the same principles following English Common law.
Yet you still fail to link a law that proves me wrong. Oh wait, tat's cause you're wrong.

You don't even have a fucking clue what a right is and you have the audacity to call me a dumbass? Let's dissect the logic of your previous statement: "We wouldn't be discussing this if private property was a right cause criminal and civil forfeiture wouldn't exist."
I rightfully call you a dumbass, and next I will demonstrate how uch smarter I am than you.

That's like saying individuals have no liberty rights either because then we couldn't put people in jail.

Hint: I am much smarter than you.
You do know people in jail still have rights, right?

Please stop watching TV, its made you dumb.

Idiot. That fits with my previous point about "COMPENSATION FOR VICTIMS." THERE ARE NO VICTIMS, so there is no situation to remedy. If any of those vehicles struck a pedestrian while being driven in a dangerous manner, by all means confiscate the car to compensate the victim.
Would you like to me to link the BC civil forfeiture law I took that definition from? I'm not relying on your definitions since you've been proven wrong so often.

If you had bothered to read the law you'd understand, yet since you're still taking TV law you're a misinformed dumbass.

That breathless leap of logic would be immune to any counter-argument I could make so I'm going to leave it as it stands.
Translation: You haven't read the actual law so all this went over your head.

Bad laws are written all the time that get repealed. This is one of them. BC is leading all provinces in the abuse of civil rights.
Wait... you just went from saying I'm wrong about laws and rights in Canada/BC, to admitting there's bad laws? Can you pick a side of the fence rather than be a hypocrite. Thanks in advance.

Idiot. If you're driving in a convoy and one of the drivers in the convoy happens to be drinking and has an accident, do you really think that all the drivers in the convoy should be charged for drunk driving? That's what happened here. All 13 drivers charged with the same offence based on conflicting eye witness testimony on SOME of the drivers.
Fuck, can you get any more stupid? if all drivers in the convoy are driving legally, then there's no issue.

If you want to keep pretending some of the kids were not speeding with the rest, again go ahead. I'm not that stupid, yet you sure are.

[taylor192]

how the fuck is blocking traffic an unlawful activity? all they could be doing is driving side by side at the speed limit
You do know that's illegal, right? More fucking dumbasses.

[Cdn EK9]

Something wrong with the law. I thought it was 7 business days.

My friend had his car impound for 3 days on a friday nite, but he didn't get it back until Wednesday. That's b/c ICBC counts business day.

[taylor192]

Edit: Taylor, you're calling other people idiots but you're not educating yourself on FACTS. Soundy seemed to have been talking in general terms which makes his posts reasonable but irrelevant. But your posts are pertaining to this particular case and you are simply wrong!

"“After speaking to witnesses and gathering information, police determined there was not enough evidence to proceed with criminal charges,” says Supt. Norm Gaumont, head of Traffic Services for the RCMP in the Lower Mainland. “With the criminal avenue closed to us, we decided to see if there was enough evidence to proceed civilly.” - Supt. Norm Gaumont, head of Traffic Services for the RCMP in the Lower Mainland.

Do you understand what that means?? Yes, it is entirely possible for these witnesses to have collectively put together testimony that could be used as evidence against these guys, but that simply didn't happen! What more is there to discuss and argue! "THERE WAS NOT ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO PROCEED...." So once again, yes there may have been some evidence that inferred that these guys were criminally negligent...Was it ENOUGH EVIDENCE? I'm not going to answer that one and let's see if you can answer it instead...Or will you continue to be narrow-minded and blind to the facts that have been provided to us "public citizens."
Edit: you joined the dumbasses who are still talking about CRIMINAL forfeiture, while the police said long ago they are pursuing CIVIL forfeiture.

It seems like you stopped reading before you got the the part I bolded. Now go back and review the numerous posts where I have addressed CIVIL vs CRIMINAL forfeiture. FFS.

[parm104]

Edit: you joined the dumbasses who are still talking about CRIMINAL forfeiture, while the police said long ago they are pursuing CIVIL forfeiture.

It seems like you stopped reading before you got the the part I bolded. Now go back and review the numerous posts where I have addressed CIVIL vs CRIMINAL forfeiture. FFS.

I'm far from a "dumbass" when it comes to the field of law. If you would like to dispute it, feel free to come by our office and see exactly how well we handle the law in our daily practice. Criminal, civil, MVA, Real Estate, and Immigration to list a few are the areas of practice that I've had the privilege of working with for and with clients. What about you?

Yes, there is a difference between civil and criminal but that is still irrelevant. The same guidelines are used by BC Forfeiture office! They look for 4 or more mitigating factors and then obtain evidence that correlates with those factors being used against them. If there wasn't enough evidence by witnesses to proceed with criminal charges, what makes you think there will be enough to go forth with civil charges. The RCMP have simply recommended that they look into it...It's an alternative to doing nothing at all about the case.

Where have you read or learned that the BC Civil Forfeiture Office requires less evidence to prove the same things that a Criminal case couldn't?

The last time the BC Civil Forfeiture Office seized vehicles, they had solid evidence for both criminal and civil repercussions.

Civil or Criminal, irrelevant. The law works the same way as far as evidence obtained and evidence used to proceed.

PM if you need the address to the office, I would be happy to let you read through our legal library.

I'm done with this conversation because you obviously feel that you are more familiar with the law than a person who has studied it all his life. Again, if you want to continue this conversation, read through legal literature and show me your point rather than basing it on things that you GOOGLE.

[MWR34]

[sitsdownandgrabspopcornputshisfeetupandretractslaz yboy]
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

[Marco911]

Should we stop charging people with speeding, drunk driving, running stop signs and any other traffic related activity, since they all relate to potential harm to someone?

Nice non-sequitur. I stated that we should not use the civil forfeiture laws in circumstances where there were no victims. I did not say that individuals should not be charged with speeding offences. There are already fines, penalty points, threat of losing your license. Those are sufficient penalties for infractions where there are no victims.


The Civil Forfeiture act as its written has more than your two examples of Proceeds of Crime or Compensation for Victims. There are also clauses that say "likely to cause harm to an individual" or "likely to be used in the commission of a crime". These clauses are the same as how we treat drunks or speeders - we fine/charge them (depending on offence severity) before they cause harm since their activities are likely to cause harm.

ONLY in BC are they written that way and that's the point I am trying to make, that it is an erosion of civil rights. In NB, there are protections built in to ensure the law is only meant to seize assets used in "ongoing criminal activity." timestranscript.com - Civil Forfeiture Act: Protection or breach of rights? | By Craig Babstock - Breaking News, New Brunswick, Canada (http://timestranscript.canadaeast.com/news/article/993357)
They specifically cite that drivers would not lose their vehicles for speeding.


If someone gets stopped for a severe traffic offence (whatever your definition of severe is), and their previous traffic violations were your typical things people get stopped for (for example, speeding by 20-30 km/h), then I do not think they should lose their cars. If a person commits a "severe" offence and gets warned that the next time they could be subject to forfeiture, and they still go and do it again, then I think they should lose their cars since they were well aware of the consequences.

At what point are people allowed to rack up these "severe traffic offences" and still keep their license? Once again, I do not think it is appropriate to use civil forfeiture when there are other remedies which are far more appropriate and do not erode our civil rights.


I don't know the records of the 5 individuals nor do I know what evidence they have on them in this latest case. But if they have a history of dangerous driving or other severe offences plus concrete evidence this time around, then I won't be upset if they lose their cars one bit. If their "history" is your usual stuff and there is nothing "severe", then I don't think they'll lose their cars.

You need to step back from the emotional aspects of this particular case and consider what you consider to be your fundamental civil rights. The legislation was initially sold to be targeted toward criminals to ensure "crime doesn't pay." If you look at their first 2 year status report, this principle was featured prominently. http://www.pssg.gov.bc.ca/subjects/docs/civilforfeitureoffice.pdf

If you look at the chart on Pg 4, all the assets seized were from:
1) Investment fraud
2) Money Laundering
3) Drug activity

This follows the 2 philosophical principles of justice allowing asset seizures from private citizens: 1) Proceeds of crime 2) Compensation for victims.

Now that BC's AG Shirley Bond has EXPANDED the powers of the Civil Forfeiture Office, they are trampling on civil rights way beyond the scope of the original legislation..


Past behavior is a good predictor of future behavior. This is how insurance companies are able to increase premiums for people with multiple accidents or multiple speeding tickets. If you've been cuaght several times for the same thing, you're not going to be able to convince someone you won't do it again. This is probably the aspect they'll argue in court that these drivers have continually driven in this manner, and are likely to do it again.


All valid points but does not justify an erosion of civil rights since there are other remedies that can protect society from such offences.

[Marco911]

Edit: you joined the dumbasses who are still talking about CRIMINAL forfeiture, while the police said long ago they are pursuing CIVIL forfeiture.

It seems like you stopped reading before you got the the part I bolded. Now go back and review the numerous posts where I have addressed CIVIL vs CRIMINAL forfeiture. FFS.

Idiot. We're trying to argue the fairness of BC's civil forfeiture law, we're not trying to argue whether the law, based on how it's written, can be applied in this particular case. Based on how generally the law is written, it can be applied to first time drunk drivers, and speeders, so of course it can be applied in this case. I am arguing that it is a BAD law and should be repealed.

[Marco911]

Yet you still fail to link a law that proves me wrong. Oh wait, tat's cause you're wrong.

There is not going to be a law that states "The government is forbidden from taking assets from private citizens." Instead, laws are written based on accepted philosophical principles of justice. Private property rights is one of them. I gave you the Wikipedia link.


I rightfully call you a dumbass, and next I will demonstrate how uch smarter I am than you.
You do know people in jail still have rights, right?
Please stop watching TV, its made you dumb.

Oh wait, did you just call me a dumbass again? LOL. Go back and read my statement that proves your earlier argument to be illogical.


Would you like to me to link the BC civil forfeiture law I took that definition from? I'm not relying on your definitions since you've been proven wrong so often.

As I stated, unless it is to compensate actual victims, it is an abuse of civil rights.


If you had bothered to read the law you'd understand, yet since you're still taking TV law you're a misinformed dumbass.

I am not a lawyer, but I clearly know more about law than you do.



Wait... you just went from saying I'm wrong about laws and rights in Canada/BC, to admitting there's bad laws? Can you pick a side of the fence rather than be a hypocrite. Thanks in advance.

1) Ownership of private property is a right
2) Forfeiture laws that allow the govt to seize private property, where the asset is not a proceed of crime, or will it be used to compensate victims is a bad law.

Please explain where I contradict myself.


Fuck, can you get any more stupid? if all drivers in the convoy are driving legally, then there's no issue.

If you want to keep pretending some of the kids were not speeding with the rest, again go ahead. I'm not that stupid, yet you sure are.

"There is not enough evidence to pursue criminal charges" what part of that statement do you not understand. Even if there was sufficient evidence, I would be for fines and license suspensions. I would not support seizing their cars.

[taylor192]

Idiot. We're trying to argue the fairness of BC's civil forfeiture law, we're not trying to argue whether the law, based on how it's written, can be applied in this particular case. Based on how generally the law is written, it can be applied to first time drunk drivers, and speeders, so of course it can be applied in this case. I am arguing that it is a BAD law and should be repealed.
Nice backtracking, do you often put your tail between your legs and turn away?

You have too many posts on here arguing the specifics of applying the law, not whether it is fair. I don't think its fair they lose their cars either, yet you have not once asked or debated that.

[taylor192]

There is not going to be a law that states "The government is forbidden from taking assets from private citizens." Instead, laws are written based on accepted philosophical principles of justice. Private property rights is one of them. I gave you the Wikipedia link.
and I asked for a Canadian or BC law link. You still have failed to produce one.

Oh wait, did you just call me a dumbass again? LOL. Go back and read my statement that proves your earlier argument to be illogical.
I'll continue to call you a dumbass until you post something factual, not silly wikipedia links and drama queen garbage.

As I stated, unless it is to compensate actual victims, it is an abuse of civil rights
The law isn't written this way. You've be well advised to read it before continuing your asinine TV law interpretation.

I am not a lawyer, but I clearly know more about law than you do.
All that is clear is that you haven't even read the law. FFS, please do your homework before coming in here and looking like a retard.

"There is not enough evidence to pursue criminal charges" what part of that statement do you not understand. Even if there was sufficient evidence, I would be for fines and license suspensions. I would not support seizing their cars.
Does everyone stoop reading at this point and just become dumb? The article states right after they are pursuing it civilly.

I do not support seizing their cars, yet I don't support dumbasses playing TV lawyer.

[observer]

A fine is supposed to be a deterrent, and a $196 fine to a person driving a $200K car isn't much of a deterrent. Remember, I make a good salary, so I am in essence asking for fines to be higher for myself too, cause $196 isn't much of a deterrent for me either.

Not sure if you have read Immanuel Kant's philosophy, but to many people, it is only fair if a punishment is in a similar magnitude as the crime.

That's why we don't have death penalty or life imprisonment for speeding.

[taylor192]

I'm far from a "dumbass" when it comes to the field of law. If you would like to dispute it, feel free to come by our office and see exactly how well we handle the law in our daily practice. Criminal, civil, MVA, Real Estate, and Immigration to list a few are the areas of practice that I've had the privilege of working with for and with clients.
Thanks for clarifying, I'll refrain from calling you a dumbass, yet I still have a problem with what you wrote:

Yes, there is a difference between civil and criminal but that is still irrelevant. The same guidelines are used by BC Forfeiture office! They look for 4 or more mitigating factors and then obtain evidence that correlates with those factors being used against them. If there wasn't enough evidence by witnesses to proceed with criminal charges, what makes you think there will be enough to go forth with civil charges. The RCMP have simply recommended that they look into it...It's an alternative to doing nothing at all about the case.

Where have you read or learned that the BC Civil Forfeiture Office requires less evidence to prove the same things that a Criminal case couldn't?
Right in their literature: http://www.pssg.gov.bc.ca/subjects/docs/civilforfeitureoffice.pdf

As the name “civil forfeiture” implies, applications are made through the civil law process and the civil standard of proof (balance of probabilities) applies. Applications are not reliant on criminal charges or
convictions. In B.C., the burden of proof rests on the Director of Civil
Forfeiture and all applications under the Civil Forfeiture Act are made in
B.C. Supreme Court.

Thus I don't know why you think its irrelevant criminal vs civil. The Civil forfeiture office operates in civil court where the burden of proof is different and criminal charges do not have to be laid. If I am wrong, please point out how.

Civil or Criminal, irrelevant. The law works the same way as far as evidence obtained and evidence used to proceed.
Yes, yet the burden of proof for a judgement is different. 3rd party witnesses may not meet that for a criminal case, yet may for a civil case.

I'm done with this conversation because you obviously feel that you are more familiar with the law than a person who has studied it all his life. Again, if you want to continue this conversation, read through legal literature and show me your point rather than basing it on things that you GOOGLE.
I'm not a lawyer, all I can do is research my opinions. I'm sorry I lumped you in with all the others who have obviously not researched their opinions.

I am interested in why you think there's no difference between civil and criminal, as this is the crux of anything that happens now.

[taylor192]

Not sure if you have read Immanuel Kant's philosophy, but to many people, it is only fair if a punishment is in a similar magnitude as the crime.

That's why we don't have death penalty or life imprisonment for speeding.
I don't find philosophy that interesting :)

I agree that the death penalty for speeding is ridiculous, yet so is fining the driver of a $2K car and $200K the same amount. To one it is a harsh punishment, to the other it is pocket change and a price paid to continue doing whatever they want.

[observer]

I don't find philosophy that interesting :)

I agree that the death penalty for speeding is ridiculous, yet so is fining the driver of a $2K car and $200K the same amount. To one it is a harsh punishment, to the other it is pocket change and a price paid to continue doing whatever they want.

I'm more of a fan of "points taken from driver's license when caught guilty after a trial". Don't drivers almost get thrown to jail after repeated offenses of driving without a license?

It is too easy to hide one's money and let's face it, the kids may drive expensive cars under daddy's name, and they don't care if the car is taken as daddy can buy many more But they think twice if they have to spend the night in jail.

But seriously, my point getting involved in this discussion, is that we need to reminded, we need to show more respect for the important rule of law, that we are all innocent until proven guilty!

We can't lock up or punish people for the potential crime they may commit.

Otherwise, we are giving way too much power to the police.

[lgman]

Taylor,Parm,Marco sorry but gonna detour from your heated RS-Bar arguments here.

Here's a excerpt from your APV33 booklet on your ICBC insurance policy. If you drive, you should least skim over it. Try to take the calls about the speed estimation as hearsay ok? what about the actions itself?


Division 3 – General Terms and Conditions
3.2 Policy does not apply – Unless otherwise provided, this policy does not apply and
no coverage will be provided in respect of~~~~~***Boring boring skip skip***
~~~~~
(e) a vehicle being used in a contest, show or race, or in advanced or
performance driver training, if
(i) the activity is held or conducted on a track or other location
temporarily or permanently closed to all other vehicle traffi c, and
(ii) there exists an element of race or speed test, which means driving at
high speed, and includes passing maneuvers, driving in close
proximity to another vehicle or assessing vehicle limitations in speed,
acceleration, turning or braking,

I'm not surprised no one bothered to look at it from a busine$$ POV.

What if something DID happen? And someone's family got seriously fucked up? I bet you ICBC will not cover a cent to the guilty driver since he violated this agreement. So consider that 1-5 million Third Party Liability GONE. Then what next? Victims are gonna sue of course. But rich asian kid's family has super rich lawyer and will fight the charges to death even though it's clearly the kids fault. Who pays for the extensive time wasted in court? Who pays for the treatment, nursing and rehab? Lost wages and future care?

People like 1exotic should give their heads a shake. But who knows maybe in 20 years down the road some idiot/rich/fob might run over your kids and laugh about how he got a few years in minimum security.

[Marco911]

Nice backtracking, do you often put your tail between your legs and turn away?

You have too many posts on here arguing the specifics of applying the law, not whether it is fair. I don't think its fair they lose their cars either, yet you have not once asked or debated that.

You are one confused individual since this is the statement that you made that started my debate with you:

"Since these are kids who can easily afford the fine to just drive with a suspended license, suspending their license alone will not serve the punishment the law intends. Thus setting a standard of forfeiting their vehicles if caught is IMHO "fair" punishment for those who can afford to break the law."

Now you are supporting MY position that the forfeiture laws when applied to the current case, does not meet the principles of fundamental justice and is inherently unfair?

[Marco911]

and I asked for a Canadian or BC law link. You still have failed to produce one.


I'll continue to call you a dumbass until you post something factual, not silly wikipedia links and drama queen garbage.


It isn't that hard to find since ownership and the right to enjoyment of property dates back to the Magna Carter.

From Section 1 in the Canadian Bill of Rights:

It is hereby recognized and declared that in Canada there have existed and shall continue to exist without discrimination by reason of race, national origin, colour, religion or sex, the following human rights and fundamental freedoms, namely,
(a) the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law;

Section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom

Legal Rights

8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.


The law isn't written this way. You've be well advised to read it before continuing your asinine TV law interpretation.

Thanks for projecting once again. You have no fucking clue how the principles of fundamental justice works.


All that is clear is that you haven't even read the law. FFS, please do your homework before coming in here and looking like a retard.


Does everyone stoop reading at this point and just become dumb? The article states right after they are pursuing it civilly.

I do not support seizing their cars, yet I don't support dumbasses playing TV lawyer.

The fact that you can't see how seizing property where
1) The owner did not commit a crime (only one vehicle was registered to a driver in the incident)
2) There was not sufficient evidence to prove that a serious crime was committed
3) There were no victims in the incident

as a violation of civil rights pretty much speaks for itself.

[Marco911]

Taylor,Parm,Marco sorry but gonna detour from
What if something DID happen? And someone's family got seriously fucked up? I bet you ICBC will not cover a cent to the guilty driver since he violated this agreement. So consider that 1-5 million Third Party Liability GONE. Then what next? Victims are gonna sue of course. But rich asian kid's family has super rich lawyer and will fight the charges to death even though it's clearly the kids fault. Who pays for the extensive time wasted in court? Who pays for the treatment, nursing and rehab? Lost wages and future care?
.

Usually what happens in this case is that ICBC would settle and pay the victims and sue the driver for the compensation costs if they believe the vehicle was involved in a street race. However, if there isn't evidence of a street race, ICBC would be on the hook.

[StylinRed]

Charter Rights can be infringed upon if the govt sees fit to do so (they left them an 'out' in the law and language for this)

[Draco]

Taylor,Parm,Marco sorry but gonna detour from your heated RS-Bar arguments here.

Here's a excerpt from your APV33 booklet on your ICBC insurance policy. If you drive, you should least skim over it. Try to take the calls about the speed estimation as hearsay ok? what about the actions itself?


Division 3 – General Terms and Conditions
3.2 Policy does not apply – Unless otherwise provided, this policy does not apply and
no coverage will be provided in respect of~~~~~***Boring boring skip skip***
~~~~~
(e) a vehicle being used in a contest, show or race, or in advanced or
performance driver training, if
(i) the activity is held or conducted on a track or other location
temporarily or permanently closed to all other vehicle traffi c, and
(ii) there exists an element of race or speed test, which means driving at
high speed, and includes passing maneuvers, driving in close
proximity to another vehicle or assessing vehicle limitations in speed,
acceleration, turning or braking,

I'm not surprised no one bothered to look at it from a busine$$ POV.

What if something DID happen? And someone's family got seriously fucked up? I bet you ICBC will not cover a cent to the guilty driver since he violated this agreement. So consider that 1-5 million Third Party Liability GONE. Then what next? Victims are gonna sue of course. But rich asian kid's family has super rich lawyer and will fight the charges to death even though it's clearly the kids fault. Who pays for the extensive time wasted in court? Who pays for the treatment, nursing and rehab? Lost wages and future care?

People like 1exotic should give their heads a shake. But who knows maybe in 20 years down the road some idiot/rich/fob might run over your kids and laugh about how he got a few years in minimum security.


In your quote above, points (i) and (ii) apply together (see the highlighted word 'and' between the two passages). This means that it only applies if on a track.

[originalhypa]

I don't think its fair they lose their cars either, yet you have not once asked or debated that.

Why did you spend the last week arguing with anyone who is bored enough to take you seriously, if you didn't agree with the circumstances in the first place?!?
Do you have a clue, or are you so stoned at the end of the day that you've lost track of what side you're on?

Wow.
Posted by puttingmy big cock in taylor's mouth (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

[XplicitLuder]

You are one confused individual since this is the statement that you made that started my debate with you:

"Since these are kids who can easily afford the fine to just drive with a suspended license, suspending their license alone will not serve the punishment the law intends. Thus setting a standard of forfeiting their vehicles if caught is IMHO "fair" punishment for those who can afford to break the law."

Now you are supporting MY position that the forfeiture laws when applied to the current case, does not meet the principles of fundamental justice and is inherently unfair?

but who are YOU to make such assumption on that ? Correct me if i'm wrong here, but can't you go to jail if you get caught driving while suspended ? So how are you 100% sure they're going to do drive with a suspended license ?

[Death2Theft]

Why the HELL are you still posting in this thread mr. dont you guys have something better do to with your time?

[GLOW]

What if something DID happen?

didnt something like this already happen in the past? that rich chinese kid with the yellow porsche killed an australian doctor that was here for vacation while the kid was racing?

he talked his way out of it in the courts by saying he would go to schools and share his experiences with kids to steer them away from street racing, in order to get a lighter sentence, and when the courts approved it, he was like "nah, don't feel it no more too bad - problem? :troll:" and the ball was dropped where they basically couldnt enforce it, it was agreed to in good will like a gentlemen's agreement. that's what i remember reading in the province anyway. i don't remember what happened in regards to the insurance portion of it.

[XplicitLuder]

Why the HELL are you still posting in this thread mr. dont you guys have something better do to with your time?

Please sir, you MUST write a useful comment/sentence/argument, or else you will have Marco911 calling you an idiot. :troll:

[ddonovan]

It is very simple..., they need proof. They need proof for each individual. They didn't have it but they knew some of the group broke the law. They impounded everyone for a short enough period to make it "inconvenient" for the owners. Impound the cars for a short enough period that they would not go to court and hit them with a fine.

Happens all the time. ANY fine money though should to towards people that have been effected by road crime such as hit and run families or drunk driving victims... I am more concerned about what happens to that money.

This is a case of inconveniencing the drivers since the law really could not be enforced without witnessing the crime.

My wife followed an extremely drunk driver home over the malahat a year ago. This guy spent most of his time in the wrong lane driving very erratic. My two daughters were in the car with my wife. She called 911 to report the driver. The police didn't arrive on the scent for over 30 minutes while my wife was talking with them. The guy gets arrested and taken away. 6 months later my wife is supeona for the case. BUT, two days before the case goes to court we get a call from the prosecutor stating that the case was dropped. The guy driving the car was 72 he has been arrested twice before for DUI including one for bodily harm while driving intoxicated. This guy appealed to the courts that loosing his car and going to jail was too big a hardship on him at his age. The case was thrown out..., That is how fair our legal system is !!!

This is a perfect example of the cops witnessing a crime and doing nothing. This guy should have lost his licence indefinitly and gone to jail as this was his third time getting caught. I certainly won't go out of my way to report anyone as the only one put out in this case was my wife who had to arrange for time off to attend court and to have the pre-meet with prosecution lawyers, then to hear he gave a sob story and got off, that really burns me. Law in BC is a joke. How many elderly drive through malls or through store windows in Victoria? At least one per year. What happens..., nothing. The 80 year old lady that drove through the taxi drivers at Victoria airport killing one and others are still in the hospital over a month later..., no charges are being recommended because she already feels bad about it ..., I worry far more about the elderly in this area than I do the "N's".

I worry more about the 'arbitrary' nature of our laws as well. It is a crap shoot if someone breaks the law and gets caught if they will actually pay for the crime or not. Lawyers these days are good and get paid well, if your a defender. Prosecution..., well not so much. You see the police holding up marijuana plants that they find in remote area's growing and tell us that they just raided and busted a million dollars worth of pot..., my god then they are dumb enough to show us the officers pulling small little weeds out of the ground that are not mature and not worth a cent...,

I for one am up for some reality.

[JoshuaWong]

meanwhile in china....
15

15 going over 200km :troll:

[taylor192]

Why did you spend the last week arguing with anyone who is bored enough to take you seriously, if you didn't agree with the circumstances in the first place?!?
Do you have a clue, or are you so stoned at the end of the day that you've lost track of what side you're on?

Wow.
Cause everyone here is playing TV lawyer, you included. If this thread was simply about whether it was "fair" it wouldn't be this many pages.

It just sucks you hide behind the fail button cause you have a tiny little cock

[taylor192]

It isn't that hard to find since ownership and the right to enjoyment of property dates back to the Magna Carter.

From Section 1 in the Canadian Bill of Rights:

It is hereby recognized and declared that in Canada there have existed and shall continue to exist without discrimination by reason of race, national origin, colour, religion or sex, the following human rights and fundamental freedoms, namely,
(a) the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law;

Section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom

Legal Rights

8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.
Nice, you finally did some homework, yet can you please provide what I asked rather than redirect to hide how wrong you've been.

Now go find law that states ownership of private property is a right. Good luck, you'll need it.

I'll give you a hint: there's tons of articles on the subject of law and property ownership and how grey it is in Canada. Real estate is probably the easiest to research for specific examples in BC.

The fact that you can't see how seizing property where
1) The owner did not commit a crime (only one vehicle was registered to a driver in the incident)
2) There was not sufficient evidence to prove that a serious crime was committed
3) There were no victims in the incident

as a violation of civil rights pretty much speaks for itself.
1) is being debated in the courts right now, specifically related to taking the property of landlords whose tenants run grow-ops. Unfortunately the law
2) civil court will decide how "serious" the crime is.
3) society was victimized by these kids showing how they can blantantly get away with breaking the law, and if you read the Civil Forfeiture Act, that definition is completely valid. Perhaps you should read the law.

All you've done is demonstrate, again, you haven't even read the law.

[taylor192]

Now you are supporting MY position that the forfeiture laws when applied to the current case, does not meet the principles of fundamental justice and is inherently unfair?

No, I am capable of separating legality from personal opinion. I personally don't think its fair to take their cars, yet legally I think the law should take their cars to make a point. The laws right now have no "bite", its time they do.

[Grim]

WOAAAH so whats going on now?
i didnt read this for a week or so and now im lost!

the twanger kids lose their license yet?

[originalhypa]

Now go find law that states ownership of private property is a right. Good luck, you'll need it.

Hey sally, you may have fooled others, but to those with some extra IQ points, your ramblings resemble pure insanity.

Very simply, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 8 states...
"Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure."

What is unreasonable you may ask?

The first step in "what is unreasonable grounds" to believe an offense has been committed. First the police must know that the law was broken. This eliminates random checks and routine stops and inspections. The police cannot stop you and search your car or enter your home without knowing a law was broken and then having some real factual link to you and the broken law.

The key here is that they they need a "factual" link, aka, evidence. Eyewitness account can only go so far. They needed real evidence.


Then you go off asking Marco to cite examples. Let me tell you, you're so fucking painful to deal with, that you drive people away from the thread. He's not dumb, just tired of seeing you reply.

Finally, when you say things like this,

I personally don't think its fair to take their cars, yet legally I think the law should take their cars to make a point. The laws right now have no "bite", its time they do.

you throw all credibility out the window. Trust me, your credibility needs all the help it can get.

[Greenstoner]

meanwhile in china....
15 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JBgAzi3i_E&feature=fvwrel)

15 going over 200km :troll:

That is Taiwan not China

[Z3guy]

A couple of friends and I were talking about these idiot kids this past weekend and I think the North American way of thinking about hitting these kids (or parents) where it hurts, the pocket book is just not going to work. Unfortunately, most rich mainlanders don't really care that much about money, because they can always make more. If you really want the parents to play a more active role in their kid's behaviour, hit asians were it hurts....."Face". Any person caught speeding +50kms or greater than posted speed limit, post there picture and name in the newspaper. I guarantee you, this will get a response from these kids parents.

Asians care more about "face" than money.

No asian parent wants to deal with the ridicule from other parents. "oh, I saw your son in the paper"

[InvisibleSoul]

This has been addressed numerous times now on various radio shows, by several people including the Solicitor General: civil forfeiture law (at least in BC) can also be applied to property used in the commission of a crime.
Yes, and the whole issue here is that it should NOT.

[suboy]

A couple of friends and I were talking about these idiot kids this past weekend and I think the North American way of thinking about hitting these kids (or parents) where it hurts, the pocket book is just not going to work. Unfortunately, most rich mainlanders don't really care that much about money, because they can always make more. If you really want the parents to play a more active role in their kid's behaviour, hit asians were it hurts....."Face". Any person caught speeding +50kms or greater than posted speed limit, post there picture and name in the newspaper. I guarantee you, this will get a response from these kids parents.

Asians care more about "face" than money.

No asian parent wants to deal with the ridicule from other parents. "oh, I saw your son in the paper"

:werd:

skip to :20 seconds
TORETTO!!! - YouTube

[ColdFx]

They really do need some attitude adjustments.

Rich Chinese Youth Fined in Canada Claim Westerners Jealous – chinaSMACK (http://www.chinasmack.com/2011/stories/rich-chinese-youth-fined-in-canada-claim-westerners-jealous.html)

[originalhypa]

They really do need some attitude adjustments.

Rich Chinese Youth Fined in Canada Claim Westerners Jealous – chinaSMACK (http://www.chinasmack.com/2011/stories/rich-chinese-youth-fined-in-canada-claim-westerners-jealous.html)

I'm a white dude who is xenophobic at the best of times, and even I think they're right. The fucking gwailo focus more on the fact that these kids have more cash than they could ever imagine, while forgetting that they're our best bet to fight these bullshit seizure laws. If these kids lawyer up, we owe them a debt of gratitude, not our scorn.

Welcome to Vancouver. If you're pissed about rich immigrants, then move to Revelstoke where it's predominantly white, and has zero culture.

[sonick]

They really do need some attitude adjustments.

Rich Chinese Youth Fined in Canada Claim Westerners Jealous – chinaSMACK (http://www.chinasmack.com/2011/stories/rich-chinese-youth-fined-in-canada-claim-westerners-jealous.html)

In the Vancouver metropolitan city of Surrey

:fulloffuck:

[Z3guy]

I'm a white dude who is xenophobic at the best of times, and even I think they're right. The fucking gwailo focus more on the fact that these kids have more cash than they could ever imagine, while forgetting that they're our best bet to fight these bullshit seizure laws. If these kids lawyer up, we owe them a debt of gratitude, not our scorn.

Welcome to Vancouver. If you're pissed about rich immigrants, then move to Revelstoke where it's predominantly white, and has zero culture.

I like how you spell "gwailo", that is awesome!

There are allot of white people with money in Vancouver too, but they don't all act like douches. I blame the parents for not actually instilling any values with their kids......."if I have money, I can do whatever I want", doesnt work like that in North America.

I am Asian, but these kids make all asians look bad. Just like the show Swamp People make people from the south look like in breeds.

[originalhypa]

I like how you spell "gwailo", that is awesome

:D
Engrish isn't my first tongue.

There are allot of white people with money in Vancouver too, but they don't all act like douches. I blame the parents for not actually instilling any values with their kids......."if I have money, I can do whatever I want", doesnt work like that in North America.

Being a white guy who did grow up with money, let it be known that I knew a ton of kids from well off families who happily promoted the criminal lifestyle because it was "cool". Guys with million dollar trust funds who stole cars, and sold bags of coke. Even now in their early 30's my old neighborhood friends now grow dope, or are "associates". They don't need the money, and they had a ton of opportunity, but it wasn't "exciting". I don't hang out with those guys anymore, because lets face it, it's time to grow up. Having a grow op in the basement of your home, while your wife and kids live upstairs is one of the more selfish, and dangerous ways of making money.

I am Asian, but these kids make all asians look bad. Just like the show Swamp People make people from the south look like in breeds.

The worse these kids did was to humanize the stereotype of the rich asian kid. I'd feel the same if it was white kids, persians, or American douchebags.

[dangonay]

If these kids lawyer up, we owe them a debt of gratitude, not our scorn.
What I hate about these kids is not how much money they have, if they're spoiled or what they drive. RS has always had a significant number of posters who get upset at people who have more than they do. What a miserable way to live your life, pissed off at those who have more than you do.

What I hate about these kids is they won't lawyer up to set a precedent. They don't give a fuck about others so why should they fight this? They'll forget about the fine and impound and let things die quietly. Money wise it cost them nothing anyway.
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

[originalhypa]

What I hate about these kids is not how much money they have, if they're spoiled or what they drive. RS has always had a significant number of posters who get upset at people who have more than they do. What a miserable way to live your life, pissed off at those who have more than you do.

Well said.
I still have my days, but most of the time it's easier to focus on the positives, rather than worry about the fact that I won't have a Lambo of my own for a long time.
:lol

What I hate about these kids is they won't lawyer up to set a precedent. They don't give a fuck about others so why should they fight this? They'll forget about the fine and impound and let things die quietly. Money wise it cost them nothing anyway.
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)


sigh.
And that's the meat of it. Rather than turn this into a positive scenario and actually use the opportunity to help our community, they'd rather buy a new pair of Gucci loafers so they look cool sipping bubble tea before clubbing.

[InvisibleSoul]

What I hate about these kids is they won't lawyer up to set a precedent. They don't give a fuck about others so why should they fight this? They'll forget about the fine and impound and let things die quietly. Money wise it cost them nothing anyway.
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)
Well, maybe it would be a good thing if they did try to go after them with the forfeiture law then... a few hundred bucks might not phase them, but maybe the prospect of losing their supercars might be enough incentive for them to decide to fight the system.

[parm104]

What I hate about these kids is not how much money they have, if they're spoiled or what they drive. RS has always had a significant number of posters who get upset at people who have more than they do. What a miserable way to live your life, pissed off at those who have more than you do.

What I hate about these kids is they won't lawyer up to set a precedent. They don't give a fuck about others so why should they fight this? They'll forget about the fine and impound and let things die quietly. Money wise it cost them nothing anyway.
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

Completely agree with you on that part, but it's not just in RS, it's every where in the lower mainland. Lots of people are more upset because of what these kids have, at their age than they are truly mad about what they've done. It's a vindictive type of anger to somehow bring them down to an "average" level. It's irrelevant whether they've "earned" their money, "deserve" their money or how they treat their money, because at the end of the day, whosever money that is, it's being used with the way they wish to use it; nothing else matters.

And your take on these people living a miserable way of life is absolutely true. Although you can't see it, their tone when they type about these kids' money has anger in it; and they will deny that it has anything to do with envy but it absolutely does. The mindset for these kids should be "who cares" about their money. It shouldn't affect anyone else because them having money doesn't harm us and it doesn't do us any good either. It only effects them. Sure, people can argue the fact that they're rich gives them the ability to own a powerful, deadly sports car but to be honest, any car can be deadly powerful or not. Anyone can get their hands on a powerful sports car, cash payment, leased or on credit. So it's really all very trivial. Just my 2 cents.

[GLOW]

they'd rather buy a new pair of Gucci loafers so they look cool sipping bubble tea before clubbing.

lets be real here...nothing will help you look cool while drinking bubble tea...

http://www.tntmagazine.com/cfs-filesystemfile.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/TNT+TODAY+BLOG.1456/bubble.jpg

:troll:

[taylor192]

I'm a white dude who is xenophobic at the best of times, and even I think they're right. The fucking gwailo focus more on the fact that these kids have more cash than they could ever imagine, while forgetting that they're our best bet to fight these bullshit seizure laws. If these kids lawyer up, we owe them a debt of gratitude, not our scorn.
I assume you mean the impound law, cause the civil forfeiture law is unlikely to affect any of us.

Ontario has had the impound law longer, it has more bite (2 weeks impound, $2K fine), and Toronto has far more money than Vancouver... wanna guess where I'm going: the impound law is still on the books despite many failed attempts to fight it.

I think they are right too, the fine of $196 is far too low if they were speeding.

[taylor192]

Hey sally, you may have fooled others, but to those with some extra IQ points, your ramblings resemble pure insanity.
You don't have those extra IQ points. Pay attention, you'll learn something.

Very simply, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 8 states...
"Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure."

What is unreasonable you may ask?
The first step in "what is unreasonable grounds" to believe an offense has been committed. First the police must know that the law was broken. This eliminates random checks and routine stops and inspections. The police cannot stop you and search your car or enter your home without knowing a law was broken and then having some real factual link to you and the broken law.
The key here is that they they need a "factual" link, aka, evidence. Eyewitness account can only go so far. They needed real evidence.
If this was true then these would be illegal:
1. Roadside checks for drinking and driving (implemented in all provinces)
2. Roadside checks for vehicle safety (implemented in Ontario)
3. Roadside checks for insurance (implemented in the Maritimes)
4. Roadside checks for tires/chains (implemented in several provinces)

What you're forgetting is that we live in Canada, our Charter of Rights and Freedoms is not the same as the US like the TV lawyers you've seen and are quoting. Our Charter of Rights and Freedoms is written so that it can be bypassed, and when those reasonable grounds are found they become law.

Then you go off asking Marco to cite examples. Let me tell you, you're so fucking painful to deal with, that you drive people away from the thread. He's not dumb, just tired of seeing you reply.
No, he's dumb, missing the same IQ points

Our laws are written on examples, thus why I use them. Welcome to Canada and case law, stop watching so much TV.

you throw all credibility out the window. Trust me, your credibility needs all the help it can get.
I don't hide behind not having a fail button.

[parm104]

If this was true then these would be illegal:
1. Roadside checks for drinking and driving (implemented in all provinces)
2. Roadside checks for vehicle safety (implemented in Ontario)
3. Roadside checks for insurance (implemented in the Maritimes)
4. Roadside checks for tires/chains (implemented in several provinces)


At an attempt to avoid arguing with you and have you name-call unnecessarily again, I will have to object to this point you made. This point and only this point.

These 4 items you have listed have nothing to do with search and seizure; they're simply to enforce driving regulations. The gentleman above (origonalhypa) meant to say "this EXCLUDES random checks and routine stops and inspections." Because in that sense, he is absolutely right.

Roadside checks are indeed random and legally justified. Similarly, if an officer pulls you over just to ask you for your drivers license, you must oblige. However, if an officer approaches you on the street and asks to see some I.D., you legally do not have to oblige and you can simply walk away.

[originalhypa]

Completely agree with you on that part, but it's not just in RS, it's every where in the lower mainland.

White people say things to other white people as they assume we all have some level of racism in us. I've had a lot of conversations with other gwailo and the main focus is that these asian kids don't "deserve" to have nice things. People are happy that these kids were caught, not because they put others in danger, but because they were rich satellite students. There are blinders simply because of the shape of these kids eyes, and that's not fair.

At an attempt to avoid arguing with you and have you name-call unnecessarily again

:lol
nice.

I guess Taylor posted something?
I have him on ignore mode and laugh that he put so much effort into his reply, and I can't be bothered to read it.

[taylor192]

These 4 items you have listed have nothing to do with search and seizure; they're simply to enforce driving regulations. The gentleman above (origonalhypa) meant to say "this EXCLUDES random checks and routine stops and inspections." Because in that sense, he is absolutely right.
I can only respond to what he does post, not what he meant to post. He certainly has demonstrated he doesn't understand the difference.

Roadside checks are indeed random and legally justified. Similarly, if an officer pulls you over just to ask you for your drivers license, you must oblige.
Thus why driving is referred to as a privilege, not a right.

However, if an officer approaches you on the street and asks to see some I.D., you legally do not have to oblige and you can simply walk away.
Your example is too simple though. If an officer has a reasonable reason to ask you while walking down the street, you do have to oblige or they can detain you. For example, if you match the description of a criminal they are looking for in the area (this has happened to me, thus why I know the law, I looked it up after cause I didn't know if I could've declined).

Thus it all comes back to a re-occurring theme: what's reasonable? as our laws and rights allow reasonable exceptions.

In one of the latest articles it is stated they are only pursuing forfeiture from some of the drivers, not all. They are going after the ones where it has become reasonable based on their driving record. Unfortunately the latest article (below) doesn't restate this. It would be nice to confirm if they are going after all, or some.

Now it has become official, the process starts so we'll see who's interpretation of the law is correct, or if the law changes after this case:

Street-racing sports cars seized in August should be forfeited, application says (http://www.vancouversun.com/news/regional-news/Street+racing+sports+cars+seized+August+should+for feited+application+says/5473197/story.html)

[taylor192]

People are happy that these kids were caught, not because they put others in danger, but because they were rich satellite students. There are blinders simply because of the shape of these kids eyes, and that's not fair.

I agree with you, yet think there's no way to prevent blinders from being put on in one form or another.

I was in Ontario when the "stunt law" (aka the street racing law, the impound law, the 50kmph over law, ...) came into affect. It was first proposed cause 2 Hondas were street racing and killed a couple in Toronto. People went crazy, the new law passed easily. From then on anyone in a modified car was assumed to be a street racer, and cops started cracking down on our impromptu night meets at Tims to inspect cars.

Later we find out the kids were speeding (20-30 kmph over), not exactly racing, and the couple killed were drunk and illegally pulled out into traffic. Did this ever make the main stream media? or lead to the law being changed back? Nope, the damage has been done and won't be undone.

Like it or not people are going to judge, and the actions/words of these kids certainly don't help.

[Vale46Rossi]

Public Forfeiture eh =/

Five vehicles identified to be forfeited to B.C. government by street racing teens
by Daniel Ponzini (RSS feed) on Sep 29th 2011 at 4:00PM

http://www.blogcdn.com/ca.autoblog.com/media/2011/09/1630.jpg

It has been a while since we heard any updates on the alleged B.C. teens street racing incident that saw numerous exotics yanked off the street and locked away in impound lots. The last we heard was that the B.C. government was intending to permanently seize five vehicles and auction them off. Well the word is now out on which five vehicles the lawsuit is aiming to take possession over - two Lamborghinis, an Aston Martin, a Mercedes SLS AMG and a Nissan GT-R.

The drivers were reportedly swerving in and out of traffic in an unsafe manner which was considered by other motorists as street racing at speeds of over 180-200 km/h.

The director of civil forfeiture would like to see the vehicles be put up on the auction block and make the teens feel the pain metaphorically to what their dangerous driving could have resulted in. Out of the five vehicles, one was driven by a minor, and an additional two were operated by novice drivers. The driver of the Nissan GT-R only holds a driver's licence issued by the People's Republic of China.

The Province also reports that several of the defendants are now known to have previous driving records that include not having a valid licence, all the way up to, you guessed it, street racing.

We will keep you in the loop with the latest news on the court case.

News Source: The Province




Five vehicles identified to be forfeited to B.C. government by street racing teens — Autoblog Canada (http://ca.autoblog.com/2011/09/29/five-vehicles-identified-to-be-forfeited-to-b-c-government-by-s/)




Pretty Interesting....

[Jgresch]

title of article: Five vehicles identified to be forfeited to B.C. government
Makes it seem like its a done deal, then it just says in article that they are aiming to take possession and the director of civil forf. would like to see them go to auction....

[LP700-4]

So why is that only 5 of them are targeted and the rest are left free to go?

[BMW M5]

title of article: Five vehicles identified to be forfeited to B.C. government
Makes it seem like its a done deal, then it just says in article that they are aiming to take possession and the director of civil forf. would like to see them go to auction....



Pretty much a done deal. If the gov wants those cars, they will get it!

Canada now becomes guilty unless proven innocent.

[Jgresch]

So why is that only 5 of them are targeted and the rest are left free to go?

cuz matt told the police that it was only those 5 speeding:fullofwin:

[Jgresch]

Pretty much a done deal. If the gov wants those cars, they will get it!

Canada now becomes guilty unless proven innocent.

:suspicious: what? y u thank my post but have opposite opinion...

[Volvo-brickster]

The Province also reports that several of the defendants are now known to have previous driving records that include not having a valid licence, all the way up to, you guessed it, street racing.


Well if the owners of the 5 cars being seized have had prior records I don't feel bad for them one bit.

Serves them right.

Slow learners right there.

[LP700-4]

cuz matt told the police that it was only those 5 speeding:fullofwin:

I dont think so cuz the blue lambo and the aston are his buddy's IIRC. Probably more cause they have a record or something??

I still think its lame especially if they do get the cars forfeited, because they didnt even have direct evidence.

[Jgresch]

lol yea i was being sarcastic :P

[CP.AR]

it could be that the popos do have solid evidence but at this moment is not releasing details... though I doubt it, just throwing the idea out there

[InvisibleSoul]

So for those driving a $200k car... monetary punishment would be something as follows:

Speeding 1-20km over the limit: $138
Speeding 21-40km over the limit: $196
Speeding 41-60km over the limit: $368 + $960 DRP + Towing/Storage = $1500+?
Speeding 61+km over the limit: $483 + $960 DRP + Towing/Storage + Car = $200,000+

I want to know how this can make any rational sense.

So on a 110kmph highway, the difference between 165kmph and 175kmph can cost you a difference of $200,000? That's a load of crap.

[taylor192]

I want to know how this can make any rational sense.

You'd have to be open minded enough to realize they are only pursuing forfeiture against 5 of the 13, and those 5 have a colourful driving record.

[Z3guy]

^ bottomline is if you choose to speed +40kms/hr, be prepared to have your car impounded. This is absolutely bullshit, but it is the risk you take if you speed.

[Jermyzy]

So what happens if these were leased vehicles? They would still be auctioned off and the holder of the lease has to pay back the dealership?

[donjalapeno]

omg who careessssssssssss......i cant beleive this thread is still going on. let the police deal with it

[XplicitLuder]

^ inb4 thisisaforumtodiscuss

[taylor192]

So what happens if these were leased vehicles? They would still be auctioned off and the holder of the lease has to pay back the dealership?

One of the articles states all lien holders get paid first.

[Tim Budong]

thoughts?

A group of street racers in high-end cars who whipped along Highway 99 in August at speeds up to 200 kilometres an hour have had their licences suspended for up to 20 months.

The Superintendent of Motor Vehicles has ordered the suspension of the licences of five men, following a large street race involving 13 luxury vehicles, including Ferraris, Maseratis, Mercedes, an Aston Martin, Audis, and Nissan R series worth $2 million, on Aug 31.

A B.C. Supreme Court claim is also seeking the forfeiture of five of the 13 cars: the Aston Martin, Nissan GTR, Mercedes SLS and two Lamborghinis. The document identifies the defendants as Dan Na Zhu, Zhang Hong Ma, Ying Chun Wang, Xiu Bo Wang, Xiao Qiang Zhang, and John Doe 1 and 2, who are both minors. It also noted that the drivers are likely to use the cars again in the future to “engage in unlawful acts.”

Officers at the time noted that none of the drivers was much over 20. Only Wang holds a full licence, while Ma, Zhang and John Doe 2 had class “N” learning licences. Some also had previous driving infractions, including street racing.

“The Director [of Civil Forfeiture] says that the manner in which the high performance vehicles were operated by the drivers ... was likely to cause serious bodily harm to motorists using the highway and thus these vehicles they constitute instruments of unlawful activity as that term is defined in the [Motor Vehicle] Act,” the document said.

According to the claim, the drivers, most in their 20s, met at Lansdowne Centre in Richmond on Aug. 31 and planned to race to South Surrey by way of Highway 99. As they sped along the highway, they cut in and out of traffic, and blocked other traffic so other cars in the group could race each other down stretches of the highway. They were caught by police after racing through the Massey Tunnel at about 3:30 p.m.

Deas Island Freeway Patrol responded to emergency calls of dangerous driving and Surrey RCMP helped stop six of the vehicles as they left the highway. The other set of vehicles were stopped shortly after by White Rock RCMP.

At the time, the Mounties impounded the vehicles for seven days, charging racers with driving without due consideration and fining them $196 each.



Read more: Street racers lose licences (http://www.theprovince.com/news/Street+racers+lose+licences+their+luxury+cars+afte r+Highway+craziness/5539786/story.html#ixzz1abPoZegl)

[Dragon-88]

They will probably just drive without a license.. If cars are powered by daddy. Cops would never know that the kid is driving unless they pull them over since insurance in under parents name. This is a risk that these kids would most likely take..

[Sky_High]

Wonder what Matt Zhang has been driving lately :troll:

[Qmx323]

the flying spur probably

[taylor192]

They will probably just drive without a license.. If cars are powered by daddy. Cops would never know that the kid is driving unless they pull them over since insurance in under parents name. This is a risk that these kids would most likely take..

If they do, and get caught, their cars will be impounded for a few months, and the judge can (yet often don't) give them jail time.

[LP700-4]

Wonder what Matt Zhang has been driving lately :troll:

I think hes still rockin the R8, he posted a photoshoot couple days back on FB and saw him drive past on cambie the other day. :suspicious:

[minimebang]

A couple of friends and I were talking about these idiot kids this past weekend and I think the North American way of thinking about hitting these kids (or parents) where it hurts, the pocket book is just not going to work. Unfortunately, most rich mainlanders don't really care that much about money, because they can always make more. If you really want the parents to play a more active role in their kid's behaviour, hit asians were it hurts....."Face". Any person caught speeding +50kms or greater than posted speed limit, post there picture and name in the newspaper. I guarantee you, this will get a response from these kids parents.

Asians care more about "face" than money.

No asian parent wants to deal with the ridicule from other parents. "oh, I saw your son in the paper"

You got the point there. 120% agree.
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

[Durrann]

Kind of related...

Fleet of Ferraris ruined in Japan sportscar pileup | CTV Autos (http://autos.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Autos/20111205/ferraris-lamborghini-mercedes-pileup-japan-111205/?s_name=Autos)

[Marco911]

They'll just drive with a DL from another country/province. Nothing the Superintendant can do about that.

[Acura604]

BACK in the news!

Street racers seek to have driving bans overturned (http://www.theprovince.com/news/Street+racers+seek+have+driving+bans+overturned/5848744/story.html)


Two people allegedly involved in a street-racing incident where high-end sports cars were travelling at up to 200 km/h are seeking to overturn their lengthy driving bans.

Dan Na Zhu, also known as Danna Zhu, 21, received a 20-month driving prohibition for her actions behind the wheel of an Aston Martin following the August incident.

Zhuo “Tony” Huang, a 28-year-old West Vancouver realtor and father of two, received a 16-month ban for his conduct behind the wheel of a Lamborghini.

The pair has filed a petition in B.C. Supreme Court seeking to quash the driving suspensions imposed by the superintendent of motor vehicles.

The petition says that the prohibitions are unreasonable and based on a “generic, hearsay” report by police.

Zhu says she and 13 other drivers of exotic vehicles gathered at the Landsdowne mall in Richmond to drive to a restaurant in White Rock to celebrate a friend leaving to attend university in California.

At the time of the incident, police received a number of 911 calls reporting that a group of high-end sports cars were being driven in a highly aggressive manner, weaving in and out of traffic.

The vehicles were said to be travelling at speeds of up to 200 km/h.

But in documents filed in court, Zhu, a student from China attending college in Coquitlam, says her speed was generally in the range of 115 km/h.

“At no time did I participate in holding up traffic from behind, nor did I participate in any racing with the group of exotic cars ahead of me, or with the group of cars that I was travelling with.”

Zhu sought a review of the suspension but an adjudicator found that while she had categorically denied involvement in street racing, it wasn’t likely that independent witnesses would provide information to police if there was no basis for their claims.

Huang also denied any involvement in street racing.

“I did not conspire or agree with anyone to travel to White Rock for the purpose of racing,” he said in court documents.

In a letter to the authorities, his lawyer, Russ Chamberlain, said the police had not provided “one scintilla” of evidence that his client was engaged in racing.

Chamberlain said that before taking any action against a driver in B.C., there must be evidence, whether it is direct, hearsay, double or triple hearsay.

“The superintendent should not act upon rumor, speculation or hysteria,” wrote Chamberlain.

The lawyer said Huang was a businessman with business and family responsibilities that depend upon his ability to drive.

But in rejecting Huang’s appeal, an adjudicator noted that Huang had two driving convictions -- for speeding and for an improperly equipped vehicle -- that resulted in driving suspensions.

The adjudicator found that it was improbable that the number of witnesses would provide information to police about the street racing incident if there was no basis for their claims.

Huang’s involvement posed a “high risk” to other users of the road, he said.

kfraser@theprovince.com

twitter.com/keithrfraser

© Copyright (c) The Province


Read more: http://www.theprovince.com/news/Street+racers+seek+have+driving+bans+overturned/5848744/story.html#ixzz1gRIWbya8

[Lomac]

Good for those two. While i don't doubt there were people doing what the witnesses claimed, performing a group impoundment because they were there isn't right.
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

[taylor192]

Good for those two. While i don't doubt there were people doing what the witnesses claimed, performing a group imprudent because they were there isn't right.
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

You have to remember they went after 5 of the 13, for good reason. Those 5 have previous convictions, and with multiple convictions are now eligible for the Driver Improvement Program where the superintendent hands out suspensions on an individual basis.

She just pleaded guilty to speeding (115 in a 80/90/100 depending on the location), so add another ticket to her record - and do the same to him. Then consider some of these drivers have Ns (we don't know these drivers specifically) and the superintendent has even more power to keep them off the road.

It is going to be interesting to see how the BC Supreme Court rules, as the superintendent has a lot of power to deal with repeat offenders which hasn't been successfully challenged previously.

[91civicZC]

I hate to say it, but good for them.

I don’t support the actions of people who drive like douche bags. I don’t support people with money that believe the law doesn’t apply to them. But the burden of proof has to lay with the arresting or charging officers and the courts. “He said she said” can’t be all this is based on when you have serious penalties and fines.

If the officers can’t prove they were breaking the law, and the witnesses can’t identify individuals (cars, license plates or faces), who’s to say they are not telling the truth? While I’m betting they were just and involved as the rest, they still have the right to have to have what amounts to charges with penalties proven against them before they are penalized for it don’t they? Good for them on fighting it. I know I wouldnt have the money to fight it, so Im glad they are.

[91civicZC]

You have to remember they went after 5 of the 13, for good reason. Those 5 have previous convictions, and with multiple convictions are now eligible for the Driver Improvement Program where the superintendent hands out suspensions on an individual basis.

She just pleaded guilty to speeding (115 in a 80/90/100 depending on the location), so add another ticket to her record - and do the same to him. Then consider some of these drivers have Ns (we don't know these drivers specifically) and the superintendent has even more power to keep them off the road.

It is going to be interesting to see how the BC Supreme Court rules, as the superintendent has a lot of power to deal with repeat offenders which hasn't been successfully challenged previously.

Was that ticket handed out for that incident, or was that somthing else?

If she pleaded guilty to the speeding ticket at the time, that will make her case harder, but if it was unrelated, it shouldnt come into play.

[taylor192]

If she pleaded guilty to the speeding ticket at the time, that will make her case harder, but if it was unrelated, it shouldnt come into play.
Of course it does, read about the Driver Improvement Program. Its for drivers that have multiple infractions in a short timeframe. As mentioned in the many articles, they only went after 5 of the 13 cause those 5 had prior infractions.

[taylor192]

But the burden of proof has to lay with the arresting or charging officers and the courts. “He said she said” can’t be all this is based on when you have serious penalties and fines.
There's a topic in the police section posted recently you may want to review:
http://www.revscene.net/forums/651157-drivesmartbc-no-laser-no-radar-ticket-valid.html

The courts will also accept estimates of speed from both police officers and the general public where the witness is credible and has knowledge and experience that would allow them to guage speed. Most drivers would have this capability through the experience of operating their own vehicle. Police officers have this capability as well as practice with it as they estimate speed and then confirm that speed with either a laser or radar in the course of their enforcement duties.

The serious penalties in this case are a result of multiple infractions, not the single incident or all 13 would be currently suspended.

I have no problem with this course of action. Ontario has a similar program, where after so many points accumulated you have an interview with the Ministry of Transportation and they can suspend your license at that time.

[Z3guy]

these speeding numbnuts are fighting for themselves, but what happens with their case will have huge precedent setting ramifications for all drivers in BC....I hope they hire a top notch atttorney.

From what I hear and read about this case, the police do not have a case......

[ilvtofu]

There's a topic in the police section posted recently you may want to review:
http://www.revscene.net/forums/651157-drivesmartbc-no-laser-no-radar-ticket-valid.html



The courts will also accept estimates of speed from both police officers and the general public where the witness is credible and has knowledge and experience that would allow them to gauge speed.

I'd like to see where the credibility/experience of the finger-waggers who called in was considered. Keep in mind no police officers witnessed the alleged incident on the highway

Lol so many butthurt idiots on the comments section

[niu99]

filthy rich mainlanders. claiming low income status while living in 10 million houses in the west side. fuck them.

[mmmk]

filthy rich mainlanders. claiming low income status while living in 10 million houses in the west side. fuck them.

you jelly? :yuno:

[Z3guy]

filthy rich mainlanders. claiming low income status while living in 10 million houses in the west side. fuck them.

wtf is your pt?

[Culture_Vulture]

filthy rich mainlanders. claiming low income status while living in 10 million houses in the west side. fuck them.
What does that have to do with anything?
If I'm earning 100k annually after taxes and driving down hw91 doing speeds of 200km/h+ (or so the story goes), it would be acceptable?

[CP.AR]

^ i think he's just saying that these people immigrate here JUST to take full advantage of our social benefits whilst declaring low income (and hence paying minimal taxes).

I for one, know at least two families who got their canadian citizenship just to "see doctor" and "cheap university".

inb4 "you mad?"
yes, i am actually quite pissed at these people, as they also do complain about the wait times at the family doctor.

[twitchyzero]

wtf is your pt?

the point is they are loaded but taking advantage of social programs; eating up resources that were meant for the needy. You don't see a problem with that?

[91civicZC]

There's a topic in the police section posted recently you may want to review:
http://www.revscene.net/forums/651157-drivesmartbc-no-laser-no-radar-ticket-valid.html



The serious penalties in this case are a result of multiple infractions, not the single incident or all 13 would be currently suspended.

I have no problem with this course of action. Ontario has a similar program, where after so many points accumulated you have an interview with the Ministry of Transportation and they can suspend your license at that time.

I think you missed my point entirely.

If someone gets 5 speeding tickets in a year and you want to take away their licence, that’s great. I get it and it makes sense. Good for the province.
In this case, I still haven’t seen anything saying they were clocked at such and such speed, or were even observed by an officer speeding. All of this is from people who were on the highway saying they were speeding heavily.
People are innocent until proven guilty.

While I have no doubt that these people were part of the problem, there isn’t anything I have reported that would show the police can prove it. Its all based on witnesses saying that this happened, but nothing to really back it up (at least reported on by the media, for all we know the cops do have evidence apart from statements that were reported)

If witnesses can pick out specific cars or identify drivers that’s one thing, but just claiming to see a group of people speeding, and the police catch up with them after the fact and start towing and pulling licences makes no sense to me.

Im glad that you have no problem with this course of action, ill think you find that many people do.

If they are pulling her licence due to how many speeding tickets she has racked up, no worries, good on them. If they are pulling her licence due to this situation (which is whats being reported) then they should have to do a lot more than "you were with a group of people who were reported speeding by some other people on a highway".

[Marco911]

You have to remember they went after 5 of the 13, for good reason. Those 5 have previous convictions, and with multiple convictions are now eligible for the Driver Improvement Program where the superintendent hands out suspensions on an individual basis.

She just pleaded guilty to speeding (115 in a 80/90/100 depending on the location), so add another ticket to her record - and do the same to him. Then consider some of these drivers have Ns (we don't know these drivers specifically) and the superintendent has even more power to keep them off the road.

It is going to be interesting to see how the BC Supreme Court rules, as the superintendent has a lot of power to deal with repeat offenders which hasn't been successfully challenged previously.

The Superintendant is an idiot. In his role, he is supposed to act as one of the checks and balances in our legal system to ensure there isn't abuse of power by the police. Just because they were at the wrong place/wrong time and happened to have a bad driving record is not grounds for suspension, unless they were charged/convicted of an additional offence.

You should learn how the law works. Her comments that she was driving at 115, is not the same as being charged and convicted of speeding.

[SpuGen]

^ i think he's just saying that these people immigrate here JUST to take full advantage of our social benefits whilst declaring low income (and hence paying minimal taxes).

I for one, know at least two families who got their canadian citizenship just to "see doctor" and "cheap university".

inb4 "you mad?"
yes, i am actually quite pissed at these people, as they also do complain about the wait times at the family doctor.

:lawl:
Not gonna go into details of how I know, but if you date a Fob, bring your own condom.

Makes me wonder if being a Canadian Citizen is actually that easy.

[Soundy]

Makes me wonder if being a Canadian Citizen is actually that easy.
Stupidly easy... unless you're someone who, you know, actually wants to go through the proper process and be a productive member of Canadian society... then it takes at least 4-5 years:
Immigration nightmare - News Hour - Videos | Global BC (http://www.globaltvbc.com/video/immigration+nightmare/video.html?v=2176084154&p=1&s=dd)

[Death2Theft]

Pretty sure they are linked now, u can't apply for a transfer without the status of your current DL being suspended showing up.
They'll just drive with a DL from another country/province. Nothing the Superintendant can do about that.

[Death2Theft]

WTF charge is improperly equipped vehicle? No front plate?
But in rejecting Huang’s appeal, an adjudicator noted that Huang had two driving convictions -- for speeding and for an improperly equipped vehicle -- that resulted in driving suspensions.

[taylor192]

The Superintendant is an idiot. In his role, he is supposed to act as one of the checks and balances in our legal system to ensure there isn't abuse of power by the police.
I think you need research what the Superintendent's role is, you're very confused.

You should learn how the law works. Her comments that she was driving at 115, is not the same as being charged and convicted of speeding.
You understand the concept of admission of guilt, right? Since you know the law and all... :rolleyes:

[taylor192]

I'd like to see where the credibility/experience of the finger-waggers who called in was considered. Keep in mind no police officers witnessed the alleged incident on the highway
Me too.

The articles are very vague about how many called in, and how many are willing to be witnesses. Yet remember if this goes before a judge it becomes all shades of grey, as the judge's ruling becomes the law. The judge may rule that 10+ people witnessing the same event is enough to make their testimony credible, or may rule the opposite.

These people are playing games with our court system and it has the chance to make our lives worse if they lose and the ruling becomes law.

[donjalapeno]

ohhhhh myyyyyyyyyyyy why is this thread is going on

[dinosaur]

Global BC | Speeding Lamborghini sold while three seized vehicles remain in dispute (http://www.globaltvbc.com/speeding+lamborghini+sold+while+three+seized+vehic les+remain+in+dispute/6442556818/story.html)

[Vale46Rossi]

Rawr!

[G-spec]

I'm not gonna talk outta my ass and pretend that I know all the details here and how everything works.
But from browsing the thread a little bit and reading this latest headline, basically they got busted racing, cops seized the vehicles sold it and kept the profit ????

I'm not gonna stand up for any of these little douchebags who took part in this, but if that's what it is, then this blows my mind, I do not understand how this seizure and sale is legal in any way, what are the laws in regards to this specifically ??
I understand the seizure, but then the sale of someone's property like that by the police ? reminds me of the "proceeds of crime" laws they got

is there more to this because from what I'm understanding if I'm caught doing 120 on let's say HWY1 and maybe passing a slower car to someone else it can look like racing they can call the cops, they pull me over seize my car and sell it ?

I know Toronto had something similar but worse few years back when they seized and crushed street racers cars, but they had to cut it out because of the public backlash. I have family over there and they tell me it's still sort of officially in effect but the police don't actually crush the cars anymore.

[ilvtofu]

I'm not gonna talk outta my ass and pretend that I know all the details here and how everything works.
But from browsing the thread a little bit and reading this latest headline, basically they got busted racing, cops seized the vehicles sold it and kept the profit ????

I'm not gonna stand up for any of these little douchebags who took part in this, but if that's what it is, then this blows my mind, I do not understand how this seizure and sale is legal in any way, what are the laws in regards to this specifically ??
I understand the seizure, but then the sale of someone's property like that by the police ? reminds me of the "proceeds of crime" laws they got

is there more to this because from what I'm understanding if I'm caught doing 120 on let's say HWY1 and maybe passing a slower car to someone else it can look like racing they can call the cops, they pull me over seize my car and sell it ?

I know Toronto had something similar but worse few years back when they seized and crushed street racers cars, but they had to cut it out because of the public backlash. I have family over there and they tell me it's still sort of officially in effect but the police don't actually crush the cars anymore.

Just to sum it up for you many people are arguing that there really isn't sufficient evidence that they were speeding, let alone racing, so far it seems like all they have was the few phone calls they got from untrained observers. The whole seizure and sale thing is just another can of worms the government decided to open. It's supposed to be innocent until proven guilty as someone has stated and the evidence provided should be proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

IMHO had it been several elderly white women behind the wheels this case would've gone very differently, the government is trying to make a statement and honestly it seems like most of the people in this city are against the drivers (most obvious are the comments people post in the vancouver sun online article etc.) Young people + expensive cars = just too easy to hate, but in the end, that type of discrimination has no place in our justice system and I sure as hell don't think any justice is being served by seizing/selling these cars until I see some cold hard evidence.

I wanna know what criminologists and lawyers are saying regarding these cases

[IMASA]

Phil Tawtel, acting executive director of B.C.’s Civil Forfeiture Office, said today that the Lamborghi was sold by mutual consent with the owner.


The driver's dad probably agreed to sell the car.
http://memegenerator.net/cache/instances/400x/5/5903/6045611.jpg

[Jgresch]

Sold by mutual consent?

So Phil asks owner of the car if he can sell it, and keep the money, and owner agrees?

[ilvtofu]

Owner probably just didn't want the hassle of dealing with son/daughter's shit and standing up in court against a government body, it's a common saying "if money can fix the problem it's not a problem"

[CP.AR]

car was getting old la. have someone take it already very good la
:fuckthatshit:

[InvisibleSoul]

I understand the seizure, but then the sale of someone's property like that by the police ? reminds me of the "proceeds of crime" laws they got
That's exactly what they're using in these cases, albeit completely inappropriately.

[originalhypa]

I wanna know what criminologists and lawyers are saying regarding these cases

The civil forfeiture office is in the process of taking a friend of mine's house for a crime that would have been a fine prior to Harper's gov't taking over. There are a lot of problems with the forfeiture laws, first of which is that they're so new that there hasn't been sufficient time for the courts to argue the fine details of the law, therefore no precedent. Plus the laws are written in such a way that their vagueness adds to their strength. As they're now written, any personal item that you use in the course of committing any crime can be forfeited.

To me, that goes far past the powers that I want my gov't to have.

[taylor192]

is there more to this because from what I'm understanding if I'm caught doing 120 on let's say HWY1 and maybe passing a slower car to someone else it can look like racing they can call the cops, they pull me over seize my car and sell it ?
You are misunderstanding.

if that was true they'd be pursuing all 13, not just 5. Those 5 have terrible driving records, so if you have a terribly driving record I would suggest slowing down.

I know Toronto had something similar but worse few years back when they seized and crushed street racers cars, but they had to cut it out because of the public backlash. I have family over there and they tell me it's still sort of officially in effect but the police don't actually crush the cars anymore.
Myth.

Toronto never crushed any cars, and the original law is still in effect despite several challenges. Hell Onterrible has used their law against police, ambulance and fire vehicles when used off duty for inappropriate purposes - which shows how fair they are being to slow everyone down.

The "crushed cars" warning came from some Toronto dip-shit talking out his ass.

[shenmecar]

http://images.sodahead.com/polls/000481417/polls_simpsons_nelson_haha2_2918_427537_answer_2_x large.jpeg

[G-spec]

it just doesn't make sense, I mean it's obvious they got money but the cops are still trying to hurt them with monetary punishments... it doesn't make any fckin sense on top of being highly questionable... I'd rather take these and toss'em in jail, guaranteed that will be more of a lesson not to fck around than seizing their car, they're just gonna hit up the dealership the following week and buy something better anyway...


and Toronto did crush a few cars back in the day, I'm there once or twice a year I remember it was on the news when I was there few years back I'll try and find clip online to post... but yea they're not doing it anymore though to my knowledge, the whole thing was just meant to scare the street racers.


edit: here's the clip I remember seeing from YT, found a little quote from a news article which is plain scary, hope this shit doesn't make it's way here..

Under the Civil Remedies Act, you don't have to be convicted, just arrested for an illegal activity. The drivers of the cars in question were cited for speeding and dangerous driving, and now their valuable vehicles are scrap metal.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWkVmt9lIB8


and interestingly this clip from California I seen not too long ago, think it was actually posted here on RS by someone, very similar situation except they say these cars were built with stolen parts F&F style

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zadq9usA2SQ

[dangonay]

So the pussy (Lamborghini owner) decided to sell his car without challenging. Or maybe they had the strongest case against him and his lawyer advised him to deal (what I think is most likely).

One other case was dropped after "new evidence" came up. The other three cases are being disputed. So at least they're challenging it and going to court. This way we'll see what the evidence being used is and if it eventually stands up or not (good for the rest of us).

I'm glad three of them lawyered up. Too many assholes just pay up since they can afford it which does nothing for others that come later in terms of setting any precedent (besides the precedent of being a pussy).

[taylor192]

I'm glad three of them lawyered up. Too many assholes just pay up since they can afford it which does nothing for others that come later in terms of setting any precedent (besides the precedent of being a pussy).
I hope you realize that's a double-edged sword. There's assholes that fight the system only to lose and set a stronger precedent.

Right now the law is pretty grey and they are going after the 5 worst offenders, which I feel is very fair. If they lose the law becomes black and white and they can go after any of us that fit the same criteria.

[originalhypa]

Myth.

Toronto never crushed any cars, and the original law is still in effect despite several challenges. Hell Onterrible has used their law against police, ambulance and fire vehicles when used off duty for inappropriate purposes - which shows how fair they are being to slow everyone down.

The "crushed cars" warning came from some Toronto dip-shit talking out his ass.

Yes they did, and I have a picture of it somewhere in an old Super Street magazine. They crushed some kid's Honda using a big tractor. They drove right over the car while others looked on.

I don't have time to find the pic now, but I remember it vividly. I'll try to find it when I get home later.



edit: Found it, thanks google!

http://media.citytv.topscms.com/images/a9/f9/5348a8284b54b5a79140830aa0b9.jpeg

http://www.citytv.com/toronto/citynews/news/local/article/14113--ontario-street-racers-suffer-a-crushing-blow-as-authorities-here-try-to-stop-their-need-for-speed

[JD¹³]

Toronto never crushed any cars............

The "crushed cars" warning came from some Toronto dip-shit talking out his ass.
Ahhhh the irony of this post.

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/005/165/PFFFFT.png

[taylor192]

Yes they did, and I have a picture of it somewhere in an old Super Street magazine. They crushed some kid's Honda using a big tractor. They drove right over the car while others looked on.

I don't have time to find the pic now, but I remember it vividly. I'll try to find it when I get home later.

edit: Found it, thanks google!

http://media.citytv.topscms.com/images/a9/f9/5348a8284b54b5a79140830aa0b9.jpeg

http://www.citytv.com/toronto/citynews/news/local/article/14113--ontario-street-racers-suffer-a-crushing-blow-as-authorities-here-try-to-stop-their-need-for-speed

You might want to check some of the dates and facts on this story, not just a simple media story or rants on forums.

There's a reason they crushed these cars a couple years after they were seized. Do your homework and you'll realize why I called them Toronto dip shits talking out their ass - not once has a car been seized and crushed under the new Ontario street racing law, as these were not seized under that law and this event was staged to make a moot point.

Its like saying the new BC excessive speeding law lead to the Ferrari being forfeited last year and now the Lambo - when its a completely different law that being used to seize the cars and they would have been seized without the new BC excessive speeding law, and those crushed cars before the new Ontario stunt driving law.

[originalhypa]

You're arguing semantics now.

The gov't took the cars, quoted a law, then crushed them. That's pretty final as far as I'm concerned, thanks to some level of government.
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

[taylor192]

You're arguing semantics now.

The gov't took the cars, quoted a law, then crushed them. That's pretty final as far as I'm concerned, thanks to some level of government.
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)
I definitely am. Semantics are important in both these cases, cause the cars weren't seized for just speeding (like many in BC worry about) or for just being modified (like many in Ontario worried about). Hell they weren't seized for just racing one time either, the BC cars were seized for terrible driving records, and the Ontario cars were seized for criminal activity if I remember correctly (they found stolen stuff on/in the cars, which not surprisingly was not reported in the main stream media).

Not one car has been confiscated or crushed by just the BC excessive speeding or Ontario stunt driving laws, thus most members on here should not fear having their car forfeited if they are caught 40+ kmph over. For those that do have terrible driving records and/or street race I have no pity that other laws will severely punish them and forfeit their cars - these people should learn the hard way.

[Acura604]

One dude is back on the roads.

Judge overturns driving ban against alleged street racer (http://www.theprovince.com/touch/Judge+overturns+driving+against+alleged+street+rac er/6074855/story.html?rel=838332)
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

[Energy]

The judge said:

“There is no evidence that Mr. Wang committed any infraction of any kind. At most there is a circumstantial case that he was part of a group of motorists about whom unidentified callers made generalized complaints.”

The judge said the police and the superintendent were “a little ahead of themselves” in acting on an “untenable foundation.”



This is a good ruling and will hopefully set a precedent for officers who go too far in their interpretation of the law

[Gridlock]

Ahhhh the irony of this post.

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/005/165/PFFFFT.png

That is "lol of the day" award winner for this January 30, 2012.

[InvisibleSoul]

B.C. Supreme Court Justice Mark McEwan tore a strip off the police and the superintendent for imposing the suspension.

The judge said the police report “does nothing more than recount hearsay complaints” regarding a group of vehicles being driven irresponsibly.

He said there was no specific information tying any vehicle of any specific description or licence number to any specific act of irresponsible driving.

“There is no evidence that Mr. Wang committed any infraction of any kind. At most there is a circumstantial case that he was part of a group of motorists about whom unidentified callers made generalized complaints.”

The judge said the police and the superintendent were “a little ahead of themselves” in acting on an “untenable foundation.”

“The incidents members of the public observed were obviously disturbing. It is understandable that the officer and the members of the public were unimpressed with the circumstances and the attitudes of those suspected of being involved.”

But it is “still the law” that we sanction people for what we can prove they have done, rather than for what we suspect they may be a part of, the judge concluded.

“It was arbitrary and completely unreasonable to issue a prohibition on the level of proof offered by the officer.”

The judge said Yim Kwan Kot, another driver who was suspended and who filed an appeal along with Wang, on the facts appears to be in precisely the same position and is entitled to the same relief.

Justice.

[Great68]

Justice.

That just about sums it up.

[Z3guy]

^ I am relieved the Supreme Court saw this case for what it is....a farce with no facts just hersay. I am not happy those idiots are getting off, but the police have no concrete evidence. I am happy to see the power stay with the courts.

[InvisibleSoul]

Wonder if anything else will be overturned, such as their tickets, getting towed, and being impounded.

[originalhypa]

Justice.

It does exist.


IBTaylor coming in and telling us we're all wrong, that justice doesn't exist, and it's all an internet ruse to get us to vote Liberal next election because Ontario is the best and we're all street racing stoners who live with our parents.

:okay:

[ilvtofu]

Wonder if anything else will be overturned, such as their tickets, getting towed, and being impounded.

I don't care whether the owners are filthy rich or not, for justice to be fully served RCMP needs to own up to their mistake and the victims deserve restitution. All the bills involved and even the defamation has a cost and if RCMP is not going to make it right for these people they have wrongfully charged we can't go off and say that justice has been served. At the very least show some accountability and issue a public apology.

P.S. I want to hear what the province bandwagon commenters are saying now along with groups like RTR (resist the race) who spoke out against these drivers.

The kind of comments I'm talking about : The Province (http://www.theprovince.com/news/Street+racers+seek+have+driving+bans+overturned/5848744/story.html)

[taylor192]

IBTaylor coming in and telling us we're all wrong
If you think that's justice, then please refrain from responding to any thread where yet another crime goes unpunished cause of our weak justice system. They are not innocent, and this is not justice.

I'm not OK with kids using our highways as race tracks, and not OK with them getting away with it - regardless of how much money they have or what they drive.

I posted several times before that this case will depend on the credibility of the witnesses, and its sad that none were willing to step forward to testify. Without witnesses, there is no case, sadly.

[taylor192]

P.S. I want to hear what the province bandwagon commenters are saying now along with groups like RTR (resist the race) who spoke out against these drivers.
Its comical that people who post in the Police forum looking to get off a ticket on a technicality are berated, yet we're celebrating it as justice here.

They are getting off cause they were not caught, not cause they are innocent. You're acting like a bunch of people all collectively decided "fuck these kids in their nice cars, I'm calling the cops to report them racing so I can see their cars towed" when the kids were doing noting wrong.

[InvisibleSoul]

Its comical that people who post in the Police forum looking to get off a ticket on a technicality are berated, yet we're celebrating it as justice here.

They are getting off cause they were not caught, not cause they are innocent. You're acting like a bunch of people all collectively decided "fuck these kids in their nice cars, I'm calling the cops to report them racing so I can see their cars towed" when the kids were doing noting wrong.
The difference here is there is no proof of who did what.

You're speaking as if every single member of the group are guilty of every single alleged violation that was assessed.

Do you, or the police, or anyone else for that matter, know the facts?

Maybe a few of them did drive irresponsibly. Maybe half of them drove irresponsibly. But do you know who did, and who didn't?

It would piss me off to no end if I was part of the group, but made the conscious decision to not do anything illegal, but then still got slapped with tickets, towing, impoundment, and driving suspensions.

[ilvtofu]

Its comical that people who post in the Police forum looking to get off a ticket on a technicality are berated, yet we're celebrating it as justice here.

They are getting off cause they were not caught, not cause they are innocent. You're acting like a bunch of people all collectively decided "fuck these kids in their nice cars, I'm calling the cops to report them racing so I can see their cars towed" when the kids were doing noting wrong.

You can't rule out the possibility that these "witnesses" exaggerated. I agree that there is a chance that the claims against these drivers are true but I am talking about the attackers online who so quickly jumped to conclusions and voiced their negative opinions.

You're completely ignoring that a shaming process took place when these cops gave themselves the right to impound these cars, suspend licenses, issue tickets, make public statements, etc. and through their actions that have already been deemed unreasonable, the opinions of many who have spoken out against these drivers have been so biased.

The media themselves stress that these drivers were young, N licenses, exotic cars, and make definite statements like "A group of street racers in high-end cars who whipped along Highway 99 in August at speeds up to 200 kilometres an hour" without mentioning any likelihood of doubt, all clearly to turn the public against said drivers.

Now that the supreme court has pretty much discredited the evidence and expressed their disapproval to the police action taken, the commenters hiding behind their keyboard will think twice about trash talking these drivers with the same confidence they had before.

Don't get me wrong I think you have a very valid point, and I am not grouping everyone who has voiced against the drivers together, but please just take a look at the province comments I linked and you'll know who the mindless finger-waggers are

[!LittleDragon]

I'm glad they got off. It's true public streets shouldn't be used as a race track, etc... but it's scarier to think that you can be convicted because someone accused you of speeding. I pretty much stopped going to car meets and cruises a long time ago because there would always be a number of cars that speed off into the twisties. I would go out of my way to obey speed and traffic laws but I was always worried I would get slapped with a ticket simply because I was with them.

[68style]

If you think that's justice, then please refrain from responding to any thread where yet another crime goes unpunished cause of our weak justice system. They are not innocent, and this is not justice.

I'm not OK with kids using our highways as race tracks, and not OK with them getting away with it - regardless of how much money they have or what they drive.

I posted several times before that this case will depend on the credibility of the witnesses, and its sad that none were willing to step forward to testify. Without witnesses, there is no case, sadly.

Hey, Taylor, for a guy so interested in facts and semantics, you sure don't use very many of them. Were you there? Were you an eye witness?

Perhaps your statements would look better if you used them the same way the police should have: GIVEN the type of cars that were there and ASSUMING the type of driving people that age would do with those sorts of cars they PROBABLY were speeding.

You didn't see them do anything wrong did you? Then stop saying you did... because guess what? The average fucktwat driving on the road has no idea what "excessive speed" is and lots of people just like to be douches and complain about anything that aggravates them, and rich kids with nicer cars than them would definitely aggravate a lot of people. If one of those witnesses had specific training in determining the speed of a moving vehicle then sure, I'd consider their eyewitness testimony valid.

Fact of the matter is, the RCMP never radar gunned anyone, and they didn't see the drivers committing the acts they supposedly committed... so there is NO case and they should have never been towed or impounded or ticketed in the first place.

Nobody is saying they weren't doing anything wrong, but they didn't get caught... do you drive 50km/h everywhere you drive in your Fast&Furious Mercedes? I don't think so. Stop being captain preachy pants on your high horse, if you think getting punished for crimes based on heresay of others isn't setting a dangerous precedent you're high as a kite.

Better yet, send me a PM and let me know where you're driving tomorrow okay? I'll call the police and tell them I saw you going 160km/h down one of the city streets you will be driving on and they'll take 1 look at your car and impound it based on my word. Are you okay with that? You should be, because I bet you will speed tomorrow... maybe not 160km/h, but hey, I'm not a trained eye, so it kinda looked like it because your car is modified and you're not that old.

Use your head man and just admit you're logic is fucked on this topic. Nobody likes to see stupid punk rich kids get away with shit, but the police were DEAD WRONG on the way they handled this one.

[GG]

^

thank you!!!

My god reading some of these ignorant statement makes me feel that some of you dont have a brain.


the police had no evidence to begin with, this whole bullshit got blown out of proportion since day 1. Whether it was the media or cock sucker motherfuckers on this board supporting these people gets punished. Punish what? they never got caught, the police never had them. SO wtf is there to punish? OH right couple bitch ass people in their prius saw exotics passing by them in a LOUD manner, therefore lets take away their toys and send them to jail? WTF u aint no motherfucking pigs, who are you to judge? IN case some of u dont know, pigs power trip on so many occasion.


Im glad king kong aint got shit on these guys, no proof? case closed bitches
its that simple
it aint even a debate


PS

everyone fucking speeds

whoever try to play innocent than you are either A full of shit, B never drive on public roads before

EVeryone fucking does 60-70km in the city

EVeryone fucking does 100-110km on hwy 1 regardless the gay speed limit 70-80km




Its not what you know, its what you can proof in court


DONt know why some people need to get all work up hating on young kids who drive nice cars. Why dont u blame god or ur parents for making u poor? if their dad wants to blow 1 mill on their kids thats their choice, they can do watever the fuck they want with their money.

[ilvtofu]

PS

everyone fucking speeds

whoever try to play innocent than you are either A full of shit, B never drive on public roads before

EVeryone fucking does 60-70km in the city

EVeryone fucking does 100-110km on hwy 1 regardless the gay speed limit 70-80km

DONt know why some people need to get all act up hating on young kids who drive nice cars. Why dont u blame god or ur parents for making u poor? if their dad wants to blow 1 mill on their kids thats their choice, they can do watever the fuck they want with their money.

Lol not everyone speeds, just everyone in the lower mainland! haha
and it's obvious that the typical can't-think-for-himself braindead north american morons would side against these kids, they are just that easy to hate. Everyone has their biases/preconceived notions and I'm not surprised at all that most people want these kids to be found guilty/had what was coming.

[Soundy]

the police had no evidence to begin with, this whole bullshit got blown out of proportion since day. Whether it was the media or cock sucker motherfuckers on this board supporting these people gets punished. Punish what? they never got caught, the police never had them. SO wtf is there to punish? OH right couple bitch ass people in their prius saw exotics passing by them in a LOUD manner, therefore lets take away their toys and send them to jail? WTF u aint no motherfucking pigs, who are you to judge? IN case some of u dont know, pigs power trip on so many occasion.
So... if a bunch of bad-ass seniors beat the fuck out of you with their canes, and the cops witness it, then it's legitimate for your attackers to be arrested and charged... but if the only witnesses are a couple of dozen people on the street, well, the charges should be dropped, because hell, those people aren't cops, they certainly wouldn't know a shit-kicking if they saw one going on, right? Even if none of the witnesses knows each other and every one of them calls the cops and tells them the same story about a bunch of silverhairs laying beaters on this douche kid on the sidewalk... they can't possibly have any credibility, right?

[gars]

I'm going to stay neutral on this matter. I know that there was no proof, but it's funny how polarized this topic is. Some people are saying these kids deserved everything, others are saying that because it's the public that called it in and they're untrained, that they must be exaggerating.

I don't have any training, but I can tell you if I'm going 110 (in the 80km/h "gay speed limit" zones), if somebody is zooming past me going 180km/h, it's easy to tell they weren't just goin 30 over the limit.

But hey, I wasn't there. I know what real justice is in Canada, and the judge was right to overturn the ruling. Funny how the one guy tried to appeal it a day late and it didn't get to court.

[sekin67835]

I'm going to stay neutral on this matter. I know that there was no proof, but it's funny how polarized this topic is. Some people are saying these kids deserved everything, others are saying that because it's the public that called it in and they're untrained, that they must be exaggerating.

I don't have any training, but I can tell you if I'm going 110 (in the 80km/h "gay speed limit" zones), if somebody is zooming past me going 180km/h, it's easy to tell they weren't just goin 30 over the limit.

But hey, I wasn't there. I know what real justice is in Canada, and the judge was right to overturn the ruling. Funny how the one guy tried to appeal it a day late and it didn't get to court.

Semi Off-topic question

Say that the witness's testimony was valid.

EG.

"I was going 120km/hr that time. He pasted by me really quick at 180km/hr"

say legal limit was 90km/hr

how about 80km/hr (breaking the 40 km/hr limit)
would the witness get hit with a speeding ticket?

[Great68]

So... if a bunch of bad-ass seniors beat the fuck out of you with their canes, and the cops witness it, then it's legitimate for your attackers to be arrested and charged... but if the only witnesses are a couple of dozen people on the street, well, the charges should be dropped, because hell, those people aren't cops, they certainly wouldn't know a shit-kicking if they saw one going on, right? Even if none of the witnesses knows each other and every one of them calls the cops and tells them the same story about a bunch of silverhairs laying beaters on this douche kid on the sidewalk... they can't possibly have any credibility, right?

The police gather evidence to corroborate the witnesses and victim's stories.

If you remember, they tried to do this with the alleged street racers (IE Reviewing tunnel video cam tape) and came up with nothing.

Talk about a stupid analogy.

[Soundy]

The police gather evidence to corroborate the witnesses and victim's stories.

If you remember, they tried to do this with the alleged street racers (IE Reviewing tunnel video cam tape) and came up with nothing.
That doesn't mean that charges can't be laid and convictions can't be made based solely on witness statements... it just means that having video of the incident makes prosecution easier.

If one person says he saw something happen, that might be questionable.

If a dozen people say they saw the same thing happen... it SHOULDN'T require video, or police witnessing the event. The same applies whether it's a street race or a beating. Other people on the road may not be able to estimate speeds to within half-a-km/h, but unless they're all completely blind, I'm pretty sure they'd be able to tell whether someone on the street corner is getting a beating... and by the same token, be able to determine whether a bunch of really obvious cars are doing really obviously stupid things and going really obviously stupidly fast.

Talk about a stupid analogy.
Do you even know what an "analogy" is?

[SumAznGuy]

That doesn't mean that charges can't be laid and convictions can't be made based solely on witness statements... it just means that having video of the incident makes prosecution easier.

If the JP has half a brain, charges will not be laid on circumstantial evidance and even less likely a conviction.

With the phone calls about reckless drivers, the police will then start an investigation and collect evidence. Since video was inconclusive, and no one was actually caught speeding, then all that is left is the circumstantial evidence. From what I gather based on the article, all the witnesses testimonies were along the line of "a bunch of douches driving daddy's car very fast down the highway" but at no point was it ABC car with XYZ plates doing XXXmph down the highway or XYZ car with ABC plates blocking the highway so their friends can in car 123 with plates 789 can race another car.

What makes it even more difficult to convict with is that every person's testimony pretty much has to match. The minute an "I think this happened" or a different car was mentioned, then that all goes out the window.

Imagine 10 people witness a kidnapping. 3 of the people said the kidnapper was a white guy. Another 3 witnesses said the kidnapper was asian guy. 3 other witnesses says it might have been a women because of the long hair.
The last witness says it might have been 2pac. Without collaberating evidence, it is really hard to get a conviction.

[gars]

If the JP has half a brain, charges will not be laid on heresay and even less likely a conviction.

With the phone calls about reckless drivers, the police will then start an investigation and collect evidence. Since video was inconclusive, and no one was actually caught speeding, then all that is left is heresay evidence. From what I gather based on the article, all the witnesses testimonies were along the line of "a bunch of douches driving daddy's car very fast down the highway" but at no point was it ABC car with XYZ plates doing XXXmph down the highway or XYZ car with ABC plates blocking the highway so their friends can in car 123 with plates 789 can race another car.

What makes heresay even more difficult to convict with is that every person's testimony pretty much has to match. The minute an "I think this happened" or a different car was mentioned, then that all goes out the window.

Imagine 10 people witness a kidnapping. 3 of the people said the kidnapper was a white guy. Another 3 witnesses said the kidnapper was asian guy. 3 other witnesses says it might have been a women because of the long hair.
The last witness says it might have been 2pac. Without collaberating evidence, it is really hard to get a conviction.

I don't think you know what the definition of hearsay is. Hearsay is if person B hears Person A say he witnessed a crime. Person B cannot provide evidence to the court about the crime.

Person A (in this case, the people who called in to the police after witnessing the speeders) is allowed to testify in court. Their testimony is not hearsay.

Whether or not their testimony will lead to a conviction is another issue. As well - this is assuming these people are willing to testify in court, and if the police are willing to call them as witnesses.

[StylinRed]

cant believe this issue is still on going

[SumAznGuy]

I don't think you know what the definition of hearsay is. Hearsay is if person B hears Person A say he witnessed a crime. Person B cannot provide evidence to the court about the crime.

Person A (in this case, the people who called in to the police after witnessing the speeders) is allowed to testify in court. Their testimony is not hearsay.

Whether or not their testimony will lead to a conviction is another issue. As well - this is assuming these people are willing to testify in court, and if the police are willing to call them as witnesses.

You are correct. The proper term I should have used was circumstancial evidence.

[originalhypa]

Lots of interesting points have been made here. I have to admit, this has been a good topic of conversation, and it looks like it's not going to end anytime soon.

[Great68]

That doesn't mean that charges can't be laid and convictions can't be made based solely on witness statements... it just means that having video of the incident makes prosecution easier.

If one person says he saw something happen, that might be questionable.

If a dozen people say they saw the same thing happen... it SHOULDN'T require video, or police witnessing the event. The same applies whether it's a street race or a beating. Other people on the road may not be able to estimate speeds to within half-a-km/h, but unless they're all completely blind, I'm pretty sure they'd be able to tell whether someone on the street corner is getting a beating... and by the same token, be able to determine whether a bunch of really obvious cars are doing really obviously stupid things and going really obviously stupidly fast.

Whatever. Theoretical situations aside, in THIS case a BC Supreme Court Justice found how the situation was handled as being wrong.

I'll hold a Supreme court Judge's opinion as much more valid over yours any day.

[sindragon]

are you guys sure the supreme court doesn't roam RS?? He striped a police officer :lawl:

[taylor192]

You didn't see them do anything wrong did you? Then stop saying you did... because guess what?

Fact of the matter is, the RCMP never radar gunned anyone, and they didn't see the drivers committing the acts they supposedly committed... so there is NO case and they should have never been towed or impounded or ticketed in the first place.
Where did I say I did? I have repeatedly said the outcome will depend on the witnesses, and they have chosen not to testify so there is no case.

The police don't have to witness a crime for someone to be charged if they have sufficient evidence like a couple credible witnesses. I would be interested to see what would have happened if the witness did come forward.

The average fucktwat driving on the road has no idea what "excessive speed" is and lots of people just like to be douches and complain about anything that aggravates them, and rich kids with nicer cars than them would definitely aggravate a lot of people. If one of those witnesses had specific training in determining the speed of a moving vehicle then sure, I'd consider their eyewitness testimony valid.
The average person can tell the difference between the speed limit and 40+ over. It usually starts with "holy fuck..." as the car flys past.

This city has a lot of kids with a lot of nice cars, and this is the first time we've heard of a coordinated attack by multiple callers intent on seeing them fucked over. If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you.

Nobody is saying they weren't doing anything wrong, but they didn't get caught...
If that was the language they were using, I'd be OK with that. Yet they are celebrating they got away with it, and we can both agree that's not right.

Better yet, send me a PM and let me know where you're driving tomorrow okay? I'll call the police and tell them I saw you going 160km/h down one of the city streets you will be driving on and they'll take 1 look at your car and impound it based on my word. Are you okay with that? You should be, because I bet you will speed tomorrow... maybe not 160km/h, but hey, I'm not a trained eye, so it kinda looked like it because your car is modified and you're not that old.

Use your head man and just admit you're logic is fucked on this topic. Nobody likes to see stupid punk rich kids get away with shit, but the police were DEAD WRONG on the way they handled this one.
If you used your head, you'd realize I'm a single driver and you're a single caller. This example is about a group of cars and a group of callers - thus reducing the risk that its just hearsay from some old man out to get a kid in a nice car.

That is, unless you believe it was a coordinated attack, which hopefully you don't.

[taylor192]

You can't rule out the possibility that these "witnesses" exaggerated. I agree that there is a chance that the claims against these drivers are true but I am talking about the attackers online who so quickly jumped to conclusions and voiced their negative opinions.
Fair enough. Hopefully you've noticed I haven't attacked the kids for their wealth or their cars.

You're completely ignoring that a shaming process took place
I am cause I believe the police need to do their job.

I have had a cop car pull up onto the sidewalk infront of me to have a couple cops jump out and question me, wanting to go through my belongings. Downtown Ottawa, not fun, lots of people around - I felt embarrassed as hell. They were searching for someone matching my description for god knows what.

It sucks I got singled out, shamed infront of many, yet the police need to be able to do their job to keep us all safe, and sometimes that means inconveniencing us, and sometimes they get it wrong.

The media themselves stress that these drivers were young, N licenses, exotic cars, and make definite statements like "A group of street racers in high-end cars who whipped along Highway 99 in August at speeds up to 200 kilometres an hour" without mentioning any likelihood of doubt, all clearly to turn the public against said drivers.
You should have read the articles when the Ontario street racing law first came out. Any speed trap would be quoted saying "caught street racers" when really they caught some soccer moms speeding in minivans.

Lets just say the media sucks.

Don't get me wrong I think you have a very valid point, and I am not grouping everyone who has voiced against the drivers together, but please just take a look at the province comments I linked and you'll know who the mindless finger-waggers are
Yep, lots of ignorance in comments on this issue everywhere - that's why I have tried to stay away from the person and look at the case, and thanks for noticing that. :thumbsup:

[ilvtofu]

What is being celebrated is the fact that the supreme court still values due process and the RCMP was knocked down a peg for proceeding with actions that were completely uncalled for and premature. It's not whether this happened or not its the fact that they can't be impulsively laying all these charges and impounding cars, this could've happened to anyone and we are not celebrating that these punks got away, but rather, a win for the Canadian justice system in terms of fairness.

[taylor192]

What is being celebrated is the fact that the supreme court still values due process and the RCMP was knocked down a peg for proceeding with actions that were completely uncalled for and premature. It's not whether this happened or not its the fact that they can't be impulsively laying all these charges and impounding cars, this could've happened to anyone and we are not celebrating that these punks got away, but rather, a win for the Canadian justice system in terms of fairness.
Ottawa teen convicted in deadly street racing case - Ottawa - CBC News (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/story/2012/02/01/ottawa-kareem-alli-guilty-street-racing.html)

Witnesses in this case testified, and the judge accepted that the average person can tell the difference between 50 and 100+ kmph.

Thankfully none these 13 cars suffered the same fate, yet if they did I bet a lot of the people celebrating would be singing a different tune.

[InvisibleSoul]

Thankfully none these 13 cars suffered the same fate, yet if they did I bet a lot of the people celebrating would be singing a different tune.
What fate?

Is this just a circular argument or what?

If there was a credible and reliable witness that can state exactly which cars did what, this is a whole different story.

Fact of the matter is it's not just that no witnesses cared to step up, it's probably that none of them were able to provide enough detail to determine which car did what.

Again, if there is any doubt that there may have been SOME participants in the group that did NOT perform any illegal activities, you can NOT condemn every single member of the group because they MAY have performed illegal activities.

[Great68]

Again, if there is any doubt that there may have been SOME participants in the group that did NOT perform any illegal activities, you can NOT condemn every single member of the group because they MAY have performed illegal activities.

That's a good point, that I've stated long ago in this thread.

I find it hard to believe that ALL 13 of these drivers were participating in the "racing" or "traffic blocking", which means that some were probably "guilty by association" when their cars got impounded.

[freakshow]

We don't like the fact that certain people got away with dangerous speeding on public roads.

The witnesses didn't or couldn't give enough evidence to form a case against particular cars performing illegal acts.

We're happy the the Justice system has overturned a conviction that was based on incomplete evidence and prior records.

Can't we all just get along?

[SumAznGuy]

The witnesses didn't or couldn't give enough evidence to form a case against particular cars performing illegal acts.

We're happy the the Justice system has overturned a conviction that was based on incomplete evidence and prior records.

This is basically what the judge said. The police's "evidence" was just recanting what the witnesses told them. There was no video evidence, or skid marks to prove speed or any of the mentioned activities they were accused of performing.

As for Taylor's link, my guess is a) 2 witnesses who claim the 2 cars were speeding and were able to describe said vehicles
b) skid marks from one of the car that crashed due to speed
c) driver of the other car lied about driving the car because he had no drivers license.

This is the "due process" that many people have mentioned.

[Marco911]

That doesn't mean that charges can't be laid and convictions can't be made based solely on witness statements... it just means that having video of the incident makes prosecution easier.

If one person says he saw something happen, that might be questionable.

If a dozen people say they saw the same thing happen... it SHOULDN'T require video, or police witnessing the event. The same applies whether it's a street race or a beating. Other people on the road may not be able to estimate speeds to within half-a-km/h, but unless they're all completely blind, I'm pretty sure they'd be able to tell whether someone on the street corner is getting a beating... and by the same token, be able to determine whether a bunch of really obvious cars are doing really obviously stupid things and going really obviously stupidly fast.

Do you even know what an "analogy" is?

That's not how the law works fortunately.

- There doesn't seem to have been specific information about offenses of specific vehicles. Just generalized complaints.
- Witnesses have to be summoned to provide testimony. Since these weren't criminal offenses and merely minor traffic offenses, I'd conjecture that no witnesses were being summoned. I wonder if you can even be summoned to traffic court to give testimony, or is this voluntary? I mean you'd have to be a serious loser to take time out of your day to go to court and give testimony so someone can get charged with speeding.

[Marco911]

We don't like the fact that certain people got away with dangerous speeding on public roads.

The witnesses didn't or couldn't give enough evidence to form a case against particular cars performing illegal acts.

We're happy the the Justice system has overturned a conviction that was based on incomplete evidence and prior records.

Can't we all just get along?

This is only a partial victory for justice. What I find to be most shameful in this whole sorry saga is the Office of the Superintendant of Motor Vehicles in BC (OSMV) and the BC Civil Forfeiture office. Justice, in my opinion, will only be served when these offices are completely dismantled. The laws are written vaguely which gives OSMV the power to suspend driving licenses at their own discretion. The OSMV claims that they have associates who are trained in law who make a decision on whether a DL suspension is deserved or not. OSMV has their own arbitration process, which you have to pay for if you wish to dispute a suspension. If they don't rule in your favor, your final remedy is to take the dispute to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court in BC stated unequivocally that based on the evidence (or the lack of), there was no justification for the charges OR a suspension of the driver's licenses of these individuals. This suggests that the OSMV and the Civil Forfeiture Office are at best incompetent or at worst prejudiced if they can't tell whether there was sufficient evidence to proceed with charges. These offices were created to administrate the laws and principles of justice efficiently. Consequently, they should require the same burden of proof that any court of law would. The fact that they are being swayed by the populist opinions of the morons that unfortunately make up most of our citizenry clearly demonstrates to me an abuse of power by these offices.

[BaoTurbo]

The law has always been grey. That's why there are lawyers lol

[parm104]

New B.C. criminal forfeiture law aims to deter crime | CTV British Columbia News (http://bc.ctvnews.ca/new-b-c-criminal-forfeiture-law-aims-to-deter-crime-1.978615)

The Criminal Asset Management Act, introduced in March, aims to deter criminals by giving the government full authority to manage or dispose of assets seized from criminal prosecutions and investigations.
The new law means prosecutors can pursue criminal forfeiture more frequently(cut comma) rather than relying on civil forfeiture, which has been criticized by the BC Civil Liberties Association because it doesn’t rely on criminal charges or convictions.
Some of the proceeds from criminal forfeitures will be used to compensate eligible victims and to help communities fund crime prevention and remediation projects. Profits will also go to the provincial government.


Read more: New B.C. criminal forfeiture law aims to deter crime | CTV British Columbia News (http://bc.ctvnews.ca/new-b-c-criminal-forfeiture-law-aims-to-deter-crime-1.978615#ixzz284VS7FH2)


Keep in mind, this only applies once we prove that they people in question are guilty of a criminal act.